Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:36, 25 May 2006

Iran Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Azerbaijan Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Azerbaijan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Azerbaijan-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AzerbaijanWikipedia:WikiProject AzerbaijanTemplate:WikiProject AzerbaijanAzerbaijan ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Following the usual procedure with Arabic names, the "more authentic" spelling Nezami takes precedence over the quite standard spelling Nizami. Wetman 22:47, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The good news is that Misplaced Pages has the redirect feature, which in this case it is being used; so either spelling works.    --K1 20:06, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A person who has "contributed" to other articles recently with a clear agenda has added to this article that Nezami also has works in Turkish and he writes that Nezami "also" created works in Persian. Well, I just happen to be a person who has read all works of Nezami in Persian -- several time as a matter of fact. I would like to ask this person to mention the names of the Turkish works of Nezami. Also, if Nezami created works in Turkish, since you bothered to "contribute" to this article, why didn't you just kindly include the names of those Turkish works of Nezami in the article? Could it be that it's because you can't name one? --K1

Listen Anonymous Pan-Turkist, this is the third time that you put in this article that Nizami also had Turkish works. I am asking you again, what are the names of those works and why don't you just include the titles of those "turkish works" of Nizam in the article? By the way, have you read his "turkish works" yourself?! haha  :-) ... also, neither Azerbaijan, an nor the lands to the north of the Aras river, were originally Turkish speaking. Nearly 100% of the names of the towns and villages and mountians and rivers are of Iranian origin. The language of those regions gradually changed to Turkish when Turkic tribes started to move in and occupy those lands. This is why all the great masters of those regions such as Nizami, Khaqani, Beylaghani, Qatran, Shabestari, Homam Tabrizi .... and many many more, do not have even one work in Turkish ... not even one line. Because they were NOT turks, and almost all of them (INCLUDING NIZAMI) have insulted Turks and have referred to them as uncultured boors. Get a clue. We will give you one more chance to include Nizami's "turkish works" into this article !! hehe this is actually getting to be entertaining. --K1 13:14, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello, the five big poemes of Nizami is written in Azrbaijani using Arab and Farsi alphabets. Just look originals.

All of the poems of Nezami have been written in persian,those who have any doubt go and learn persian alphabets and read them!!!! and don't come here and speak about the things that they don't know anything about them.

Comment: The article mentioned that Nezami also has a diwan, but this is not true. All we have from Nezami are five Persian works:

• Makhzan al-Asrar (The Storehouse of Mysteries) (1165)
• Khosrow o Shirin (The story of Khosrow and Shirin) (1175)
• Leily o Majnoun (The story of Layla and Majnun) (1188)
• Eskandar-Nameh (The Book of Alexander) (1191)
• Haft Paykar (The Seven Beauties) (1198)

Three of these works have to do with pre-Islamic Persian: Haft Paykar, Eskandar-Nameh, Khosrow o Shirin. The other one consists of Makhzan al-Asrar which is a sufic work and Leily o Majnoun which is a love story of the Arabian peninsula. Leily o Majnoun was composed for the Shirvanid Shahs who were originally of Arab Descent but became heavily Persianized.

UNESCO

The year 1991 was named the Year of Nezami, Azeri poet, by UNESCO

Ask UNESCO, if you don't believe

That is nonsense since there was no such thing as "azeri" Turkic speaker back then. UNESCO did no such thing, since Nezami Ganjavi ethnically is Kurdish from his mothers side and Persian from his father side.

How can you have something as an absolute fact in 12 century, Sounds strange. The sure thing that he wrote in Persian. Options are several 1) he was of local Albanian stock 2) he was Iranian stock, most likely Kurdish 3) Seljuk Turkish or all above combined. . It is unlikely that he was ethnically Persian as Persians live in SW of Iran. If it is known that his father is from Qom then it is a different matter. abdulnr 18:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Persian language has always been used for poetry even today there are Azeris who wrote in Persian because its much more a artistic language. I think we should remove what ethnicy he had and just write he was born in Ganja. Baku87 22:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Baku87

Hmmm, ok. I suggest we ask the Persian editors what they think as well, namely Zereshk (who is also half Azeri). —Khoikhoi 23:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Nizami and his ethnicity

The problem with our friends from the republic of Azerbaijan is that they can not read Nizami or sometimes they mention a verse that does not exist or is pronounced so badly, that one can not judge it. I want to add that any person can find all the original 5 jewels of Nizami in its original language:

1) His Mother

Else his ethnicity is very clear if you read and understand his work. His mother is definitely of Kurdish extraction and that is pretty clear by this verse about his own mother: Gar maadar man Rai'seyeh Kurd - Maadar Sefataaneh Pish Man Mord. (If my mother Ra'iseh the Kurd - Left this world in motherly way). This is clearly makes him Iranian and not Turkic..

گر مادر من رئیسه کرد

مادر صفتانه پیش من مرد

از لابه‌گری کرا کنم یاد

تا پیش من آردش به فریاد

غم بیشتر از قیاس خورداست

گردابه فزون ز قد مرد است

زان بیشتر است کاس این درد

کانرا به هزار دم توان خورد

با این غم و درد بی‌کناره

داروی فرامشیست چاره

ساقی پی بار گیم ریش است

می ده که ره رحیل پیش است

Persian (like Turk/Tukic) is also a fluid term and has been used ethnically for Iranian(Iranian branch of Indo-Iranians) in general sense. Note some Azarbaijan scholars want to change the term Kord to Gord (warrior) here although no edition and manuscript supports this and the verses above would be meaningless. Because Nizami is talking about the suffering of his mother and how motherly she was. Nothing about being a warrior and in fact for strict Muslims like Nizami, Women had their traditional role, specially his mother.

2) His Father

As per his father, the following verses are in some of the manuscripts:

cho dorr gar cheh dar bahr-e ganjeh gomam valee az ghohestan-e shahr-e ghomam beh tafresh dehee hast "taa" naam-e oo Nezamee az aanjaa shodeh naamjoo

It is from introduction section of "Divan-e khamseh, nezamee ganjavi" by Moinfar, corrected by Vahid Dastgerdi, Zareen Publishing, second edition, Tehran 1362 (1983). It describes his father as being from Qom (Central Iran).

These are all the verses available about his parents. None of them mention Turkish. Dr. Julia Meysami, as well as Vahid Dastgerdi and Dekhoda have all mentioned his Kurdish mother and Persian father.

3) Now as per Albanian, Albanian (Arrani) did not exist anymore during Nizami's time and the Albanian church was already incorporated into Armenian Church and became part of the Armenians. Note I am not denying that ethnically Azarbaijanis are not related to Albanians either. In fact genetic testing shows that both Armenians and Azarbaijans of the Caucus are the closest people to Albanians. But here I am mainly concerned about culture and language of Nizami and so Albanians (which did not exist at that time anymore) would be invalid. Nizami contributed solely to Persian culture and language.

4) As per Seljuq Turks, Nizami was not a Seljuq or from their family. Else he would not be a court poet of theirs! Also the Seljuqs intermarried all over with local dynasties and they were Persianized to a large extent. They supported Persian culture and eventually some of them took Persian names like Keykhosrow, KeyKavus and etc. The term Turk even was derogatory in Anatolia prior to Ataturk. But Nizami was definitely not a Seljuq or else it would have been mentioned in different biographies as well as his five jewels. Nizami has some very harsh words about Turks. For example, he describes from eskandar: "Beh nefrin torkaan zabaan bar goshaad - keh bi fitna torki ze maadar nazaad" or "Torki sefat-i vafaayeh maa nist - Torkaaneh Sokhon sezaayeh maa nist - An koo ze nasab boland Ayad - oo raa sokhan boland baayad". Three of his works are also about Ancient Persian and two about the Sassanid dynasty. Had he contributed anything to Turkish folklore or culture, there could have been a debate on his ethnicity and him being partially Turkish. The fact is, the Sassanids and the Alexandar/Dara stories does not have anything to do with Turkish folklore and heritage like Dede-Qorqod or KurOglu. They are part of Persian/Iranian folklores (see Shahnameh).

5) Persians/Iranians today live from the North and South of Baku (Tats in Baku and Talysh in Lankoran/Astara and Tati in in Iranian Azarbaijan) all the way down to the Persian Gulf. And from the west all the way to Bukhara/Samarqand and Tajikistan. So I am not sure where one person gets the SW Iranian theory. Yes the ancient Persian empire rose out of the SW Iran, but their language was ancient Persian which was mutually intelligible with Median, Soghidan, Avesta and etc. of that time. This is 2500 years ago and by that time various Iranians had intermingled and the term Persian came to refer to any Iranian –speaking group.

You might want to read the following about the turkification of the area: http://www.kiffer.us/azeri_info/history_of_azerbaijan-emb.htm

6)

Nizami has some harsh words for Turks when he describes them in a non-figurative way. First we should not be confured and to Nizami the term Turk meant the Mongloids of Central Asia, as Anatolian and Azarbaijani Turkic speakers did not exist back then. Nizami describes the ethnicity of Turks clearly: Cheshm Tang (narrow eyed) like that of the Mongoloid race. See the Persian verses below which he belittles Turks and leaves us no doubt that he was not related in any way to Turks:

به نِفرين تُرکان زَبان بَرگُشاد

که بي فِتنِه تُرکي زِ مادَر نَزاد

زِ چيني بِجُز چينِ اَبروُ مَخواه

ندارند پِيمان مردم نِگاه

سُخن راست گُفتند پيشينيان

که عَهد و وَفا نيست در چينيان

همه تَنگ چِشمي پَسنديده اند

فَراخي به چَشمِ کَسان ديده اند

خبر ني که مهر شما کين بُوَد

دل تُرکِ چين پُر خَمُ و چين بُوَد

اگر تُرکِ چيني وَفا داشتي

جهان زيرِ چين قَبا داشتي

I do not want to translate the above verses because it is absolutely rude to a great degree. He also says in another poem:

تُرکی صِفَت وَفای ما نيست

تُرکانِه سُخن سِزای ما نيست

آن کز نَسَبِ بُلَند زايد

او را سُخن بُلند بايد

And again he describes Turks as narrow-eyed and Mongoloid as well:

ز بس که آورده ام در چشمها نور

ز ترکان تنگ چشمي کرده ام دور

7)

There is also a theory put forth by the Azarbaijan republic scholars that Nizami's third wife could have been Turkish of Qipchaq. But this is not supported clearly. Because a ‘’Turk-e-Qipchaq’’ is used in Persian poetry as a beautiful lover (since Iranians at that time found the Mongoloid race beautiful) and does not have an ethnic connotation. For example Hafez used Tork-e- Yaghma, Tork-a-Khajal, Tork-e-Khataai....etc. The term Turk and Hindu and Roman and Ethiopian are used as Sun and Darkness in Persian poetic imagery. Because Turks were yellow and Romans are white, while Hindus and Ethiopians are Dark, the contrast provided a reasonable poetic symbolism for the poets. So there is a lot of imagery here and nothing of it has to do with ethnicity. For example Nizami in one verse described a beauty of Kurdish extraction of having a Turkish face with a Hindu mole. Khaghani in one verse claims to be a hindu (here meaning slave or servant) of

Turks(the mongloid types) while being considered beautiful by Persians poets, were also deemed as cruel and unfaithful.

Also the term Tork-Zaad (born of a Turkish mother) rather than Tork means someone born of a Turkish slave. And it is actually derogatory: "Sokhan bas kon az Hormozd-e-Tork-zaad - Keh andar zamaaneh mabaad aan Nejaad". (Ferdowsi) The Sassanid half Turkish king Hormozd whose mother was a Turkish princess of the Gok-Turks, was referred to as Tork-Zaad in Shahnameh,. Zaadan means to give birth and Tork-Zaad rather than the term Turk, refers to a son of Turkish slave (Dekhodas dictionary). So if Nizami used such a term about the son from the Turkish slave (assuming the term Turk here is literal and not metaphorical like most of Persian poetry) given to him by the Seljuqs, then he would definitely not be a Turk.

Also Afaagh is not the name of this wife. Afaagh means horizon and Nizami is saying that his beuty is like the Horizon. I am not sure how even some go from Afagh to Apaq, when there is no mention of such word and all the copies have put Afagh.

8) Nizami heavily praises Ferdowsi:

سخن گوی پیشینه دانای طوس

که آراست روی سخن چون عروس

The wise speaker of Tus who wrote verses as beautiful as new brides. Ferdowsi was not much liked by Turks either and has harsh words in reference to Turks. In fact Nizami mentions that he took a flower from Shahnameh and expanded it.

9) Nizamis description of Azarbaijan in Eskandar nameh is purely Zoroastrian and Persian.

So this makes it clear Turks were not natives of Azarbaijan at ancient times. Furthermore Nizami has very harsh words for Turks that I will just write in Persian:

http://rira.ir/rira/php/?page=view&mod=classicpoems&obj=poem&id=10905&lim=20&pageno=3

وز آنجا به تدبیر آزادگان

درآمد سوی آذر آبادگان

بهر جا که او آتشی دید چست

هم آتش فرو کشت و هم زند شست

در آن خطه بود آتشی سنگ بست

که خواندی خودی سوزش آتش پرست

صدش هیربد بود با طوق زر

به آتش پرستی گره بر کمر

بفرمود کان آتش دیر سال

بکشتند و کردند یکسر زکال

چو آتش فرو کشت از آن جایگاه

روان کرد سوی سپاهان سپاه

بدان نازنین شهر آراسته

که با خوش‌دلی بود و با خواسته

دل تاجور شادمانی گرفت

به شادی پی کامرانی گرفت

بسی آتش هیربد را بکشت

بسی هیربد را دوتا کرد پشت

بهاری کهن بود چینی نگار

بسی خوشتر از باغ در نوبهار

به آیین زردشت و رسم مجوس

به خدمت در آن خانه چندین عروس

همه آفت دیده و آشوب دل ز گل

شان فرو رفته در پا به گل

در او دختری جادو از نسل سام

پدر کرده آذر همایونش نام

چو برخواندی افسونی آن دل‌فریب

ز دل هوش بردی ز دانا شکیب

به هاروتی از زهره دل برده بود

چو هاروت صد پیش او مرده بود

The above verses clearly mention Azarbaijan as Iranian and Zoroastrian (Magian) stronghold. The Turks were a shamanistic people living far away from Azarbaijan . At the time of Nizami Ganjavi, the main language of Azarbaijan was not yet Turkish. For example the city Ganjeh is clearly a Persian word, as are cities like Shirvan, Baku, Nackjivan,Darband,.. as well as the name Azarbaijan itself. The Turkification of this area occurred later.

10) Nizami understood Arabic, Persian, Bukhari(Soghdian Persian/Iranian dialect) and Tabari (Mazandarani Persian/Iranian dialect).

باز چستم ز نامه‌هاي نهان

كه پراكنده بود گرد جهان

زان سخن‌ها كه تازي است و دري

در سواد بخاري و طبري

وز دگر نسخه‌ها پراكنده

هر دري در دفيني آكنده

But no where has he mentioned using Turkish sources for any of his stories.

11)

Note I am not trying to put the people of republic of Azerbaijan down, but the simple fact is that at that time, Turkic was not predominant neither in the caucus nor Azarbaijan. Neither did the formation of an Azarbaijani ethnic group exist. There is simply not one poetic manuscript of this language from the caucus prior to the Ilkhanid mongol invasion, long after Nizami. And even after that, it was just from couple of court poets of the Ilkhanids. Azarbaijani Turkish started developing during the Black Sheep Turkomans and then Safavids. Indeed if there was a formation of Azarbaijani ethnic group at the time of Nizami, then they would have had poetry in that language as well. Also expert Oxford Professor like Julia Meysami has already given a very clear verdict and I support her decision. So Nizami would be ethnically Iranian.

Another Russian Iranian scholar, by the name of Mikhail Kapustin in 1988 (during the time when the soviet union was opening up to the world and there was no pressure on scholars to manipulate fact) wrote in the cultural magazine of Soviets: Nizami Ganjavi is one of the greatest thinkers and poets of the middle ages and belongs to the exceptional heritage of Persian literature. He had no connection with the current culture of Azarbaijan. And Azerbaijanis (he means the caucus ones that consider themselves Turks) are making a useless effort to claim and make him of their own. At the time of Nizami, Azeri-Turks did not exist in Azarbaijan. (sovietkaya kultura (soviet culture) magazine, 27 of December, 1988).

Here I will mention another historic figure which is claimed by some Turkic groups, Babak Khorramdin. The reason is that it sheds more information on the ethnicity of the region during the time of Nizami.

Azerbaijan was the scene of frequent anti-caliphal and anti-Arab revolts during the eighth and ninth centuries, and Byzantine sources talk of Persian warriors seeking refuge in the 830s from the caliph’s armies by taking service under the Byzantine emperor Theophilos (p.195)…Azerbaijan had a Persian population and was a traditional centre of the Zoroastrian religion…(p.203)…The Khurramites were a…Persian sect, influenced by Shiite doctrines, but with their roots in a pre-Islamic Persian religious movement (p.215) From: Whittow, Mark, The Making of Byzantium: 600-1025, Berkley: University of California Press, p.195, 203, 215.

12) Culturally Nizami is a Persian. (There is no debate on this as he is a Persian poet and his five jewels have nothing to do with Turkic culture). Ethnically he is with 100% certainty half Kurdish and with reasonable certainty half Persian. So he is a product of the Perso-Islamic culture that produced other poets like Khaghani, Mahasti Ganjavi, Qatran, Homam and over 1200 Persian poets that we know from the area before Turkification. His works also reflects it as the Sassanids were true glorious Iranian dynasty and his most well known work is the Haft-Paykar and Khusraw o Shirin. If he was Turkish, he would write something about Turkic epics which he did not. The Sassanids were major enemies of Turkic dynasties like Go-Turks and Khazars. Note Nizamis praise of Alexander is due to the fact that Alexander was considered a religious Islamic figure named Dhul-Qarnain. So even Ferdowsi has put some good words for Alexander in some verses.

So even if some users suggest we do not mention his ethnicity, the term Persian poet is very clear. The fact is his contribution is all for the Persian culture and he lives through this culture. And Iranians, Afghans and Tajiks today understand him while Turks do not. Also it is 100% that he was half Kurdish and this is well known fact mentioned by Dr. Meysami amongst many other scholars. His cultural contribution are all left for the Iranian world and even if he hypothetically speaking was a black African, the poetry today is known by the culture and language and masterpieces that he created. Poetry can not be translated and lives through the language that is spoken by the people. So culturally Nizami did not have anything to do with Turkic groups.

--Ali doostzadeh 08:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I’m not participating in this discussion, but with regard to Nizami’s Turkic wife Afaq you may wish to have a look at this article by Iranian scholar Iraj Bashiri:

Nizami married three times. His first wife, Afaq, a Kipchak slave girl, was sent to him by Fakhr al-Din Bahramshah, the ruler of Darband, as a part of a larger gift. She became Nizami's first and most beloved wife. The wife who gave Nizami his only son, Muhammad, could well also be the inspiration for Shirin in "Shirin and Farhad." Afaq died after "Khusrau and Shirin" was completed. Muhammad was seven at the time. Strangely enough, Nizami's other wives, too, died prematurely--the death of each coinciding with the completion of an epic, prompting the poet to say, "God, why is it that for every mathnavi I must sacrifice a wife!"

I don’t know why this fact is not mentioned in the article. And the claims that he was anti-Turkish sound strange, considering that his beloved wife was Turkic, and he’s patrons were Turkic rulers. Regards, Grandmaster 06:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I did not claim he was anti-Turkish, but he has some very harsh words about Turks in two instances, which makes it improbable that he was a Turk. Because a person that has pride in any Turkishness, would not write such verses. One is when Alexander confronts the Khaghan of Turks and I did not want to even translate this section. Note Nizami wrote the poems. The other is in the introduction of Lili o Majnoon which was written for the Persianized Shirvan-Shah (originally of Arab descendant). I brought the example of Ottoman empire where the term "Turk" was an insult. Khaghani Shirvani has similar sentences. As does Qatran Tabrizi. But Nizami was also a mystic poet. The term Turk has a variety of meanings in Persian poetry which is beyond this discussion.

As per Afaq, the fact is that the word Afaq means horizon. So scholars (like Said Nafisi and Vahid Dastgerdi) who have written many books on Nizami and are more of an expert than Dr. Iraj Bashiri on Nizami, have concluded the verse to mean that Nizami's wife was like the horizon for her, and not that her name was "Afagh", which is an Arabic name. All manuscripts have also written "Afagh" and this is an Arabic name and not Turkish. Either way, Nizami by ethnicity is a Kurd and his father is probably Persian. (Which Dr. Iraj Bashiri, Julia Meysami, Dehkhoda, Said Nafisi, Vahid Dastgerdi amongst many scholars have agreed upon). Specially the Kurdish part is 100% certain. But as per one of his wife (his third or first), which is alleged to be a Qipchaq slave given to him by one of his patrons, there is only few lines and the key word is Bot-e-Qapchaq (the idol of Qifchaq). The problem is that in Persian poetry bot-e-Khotan,Bot-e-Khalkh,Bot-e-Tork.. means a beutifull person. At that time Turks (and I emphasize mongloid Turks as Nizami has called them chesm-tang) were also an object of beauty in Persian poetry and so anyone that was beautifull would be called Tork-Vash, Tork-Roo, Tork.. The same can be said with the word Hindu which came to mean servant and also darkness. For example Khaghani and Attar both call themselves Hindu in different verses, but these do not have ethnic connotations. Considering the fact that Nizami uses a lot of symbology, for example in this verse he callsed a daughter of a Kurdish person, Hindu and Turk:

کرد را بود دختری به جمال

لعبتی ترک چشم و هندو خال

مهی ترک رخساره هندو سرشت

ز هندوستان داده شه را بهشت

Or take this verse by Rumi:

گه تركم و گه هندو گه رومي گه زنگي

از نقش تو است اي جان اقرارم و آنكارم

Sometimes I feel like a Turk, sometimes a Hindu, sometimes a Roman, Sometimes an African.. It is from your design that I exist and do not exist.

Or Attar:

کي توانم گفت هندو توام

هندوي خاک سگ کوي تو

When Can I say that I am your Hindu I am hindu of the place of your dog.

Or Khaghani describing himself in one verse:

کمترين هندوي او خاقاني است

I am the lowest amongst his Hindus..

So the words Hindu/Turk/Roman/African(Zang) have taken much symbolic meaning in Persian poetry and that part that he calls his wife Bot-e-Qapchaq (the idol of Qifchaq) does not necessarily have ethnic meaning. As already pointed out. Virtually any time you see the word Turk comeup with Hindu/Zang(Black)/Habash(Ethipion), there is symbolism. Also Nizami was definitely a Muslim first (and it should be mentioned).

So Nizami is a Kurdish Muslim by ethnicity (confirmed by all sources that his mother and mothertongue was Kurdish), Persian/Kurd (Iranian) culturally (all of his writing is in Persian, three of his five jewels (Persian: Ganjhaa) are about ancient Iran..) and a Ganjavi (A city of modern republic of Azarbaijan) by birth. Also I will emphasize that the Seljuqs who were one of his patrons and new arrivals to the region, might have been originally Turkic in culture, but they became Persianized, married with local dynasties and their court language was Persian and they did not develop or support Turkic culture. One can not find the geneology and the ethnicity of the parent (luckily we know Nizami was Kurdish) or grandparent or all the grand-grand parent of each historical figure. So culture takes primacy and culturally Nizami is a Muslim and an Iranian having written all his work in Persian and also creating masterpieces from the folklore of ancient Persia as well Islamic folklore. A poet is tied with the culture and language he lives by.

--Ali doostzadeh 10:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please have a look at this as well. This is also an Iranian source, and it also says that Afag was his wife and not horizon.

Nezami was married three times. His first wife was Afagh who he deeply loved. His only son Mohammad was from Afagh. When Nezami was writing "Khosrow and Shirin", Afagh died. After the death of Afagh, he married again. His second wife died when he was writing "Leyla and Majnoun". He got married for the third time. His third wife died when he was writing the book of "Eghbalnameh." Nezami surprisingly said, "It seems that with every book I write, I give a sacrifice."

His son Mohammad was seven years old when Nezami wrote "Khosrow and Shirin", fourteen years old when he wrote "Leyla and Majnoun", and eighteen or nineteen when he wrote "Haft Peykar" (Seven Beauties). Nezami said that his son encouraged him to write "Leyla and Majnoun". It is said that his son was very intelligent and familiar with poetry. Nezami sent his son to give his messages to King Malek Ezeddin as well as to deliver a copy of "Eghbalnameh" which Nezami wrote in the name of the king.

As for Nizami’s ethnicity, it is not known, and academic sources agree only that his mother was of Kurdish origin and his beloved wife Afagh was Turkic. You can’t say Nizami was Kurdish because his mother was Kurdish. See the way Britannica handles this issue:

Nezami

Encyclopædia Britannica Article

born c. 1141, Ganja, Seljuq empire died 1209, Ganja, in full Elyas Yusof Nezami Ganjavi, Nezami also spelled Nizami greatest romantic epic poet in Persian literature, who brought a colloquial and realistic style to the Persian epic.

It does not say anything about his ethnicity, which is a very obscure issue, but states that he was one of the greatest poets in Persian literature, which everybody agrees with, since he wrote in Persian. As for his supposed anti-Turkish statements, it’s looks like they belong to the characters of his poems and cannot be attributed to the poet. Grandmaster 11:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Note the same link that you brought does not say anything about Turkic wife. It just calls Nizami's wife by the name Afagh. At the same time I brought the interpretation of Vahid Dastgerdi about Afagh, who is the foremost amongst Nizami scholar. The main thing is that the poetry does not use the word Apaq at all and this part is definitely an extrapolation not supported by the poetry. Nizami had three wifes and one of them could have been the slave by the name Afagh. At the same time, one can just consider the word Afagh to mean horizon as Vahid Dastgerdi (who has published the most complete Panj Ganj) has stated and not necessarily be his wifes name.

The anti-Turkish statements are written and versified by Nizami. One is in the introduction of Lili o Majnoon. The other is from Alexandar who is regarded highly by Muslims because he assumes the Quranic character Dhul-Qarnain. For example: "Torki Sefat-e- Vafaayeh maa nist - Torkaaneh Sokhon, sezaayeh maa nist- An koo ze nasab boland zayad - oo raa sokhan boland ayad" (Our faithfullness is not like that of Turk, Speaking like a Turk is not befitting for us, the person who is born of a high race/birth, his language should be of high place). They are relatively harsh that it rules out any possibility of him being partly Turkic in anyway. The part where Alexander addresses the Khaghan is also extremly harsher. Also when he states his sources about Sassanids, he mentions Persian, Arabic, Tabari (Iranian dialect), and Bukharic (Soghdian)). Either way I agree that Academic sources agree that he had a Kurdish mother and his father could have been from Qom. Besides both of these are supported by his actual poetry. The part about Kurdish mother is in all manuscripts and the part about Qom is in some manuscripts. So he either was of mixed ancestory (half Kurdish) or was full Kurdish. The Kurdish part is not at all obscure and is agreed upon by all Nizami Scholars with some repute. It is supported by the verses: Gar maadar man Raiseyeh KORD - Maadar sefataaneh Pish man mord. So the Kurdish part should definitely remain while his other half, one can say "may" have been from Qom, like Prof. Julia Meysami stated. Other than that, we have nothing else to indicate he was Turkish, (even if he knew Turkish which again is not supported by any hard evidence). Since his contribution is to Iranian/Persian culture and he was a Persian poet (has all his work in Persian), and his works about ancient Iran, we should mention his Iranian character. Which is stated in the article already. --Ali doostzadeh 17:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The majority of sources agree that his wife was Afag and she was Turkic. This has not been seriously disputed so far. And second source does not contradict Bashiri, it does not say she was not Turkic, it just does not mention specifically her ethnicity. Also sources that I read agree that his mother was Kurdish, but that does not make him Kurdish, in Muslim world ethnicity is traced by father’s line. As for his father, the verse about Qom was a later addition, Russian academician Barthold, who’s considered one of the best specialists on Iran, said that he checked the oldest manuscript of the poem, which is held in Paris library, and that verse was not there, so it’s a later addition. Now as for his supposed anti-Turkic statements, they both come from the characters in his poems, Shirvanshash Ahsitan and Alexander the Great (Iskanadar), and cannot be attributed to the poet. I know the verse about Shirvanshah you are referring to, in fact it is used by some as a proof of Nizami’s supposed Turkic origin. Some interpret it as Shirvanshah’s opposing to Nizami’s idea of writing the poem in Turkic language, and Nizami was indignant with the words of Shirvanshah “Speaking like a Turk is not befitting for us, the person who is born of a high race/birth, his language should be of high place”, which is interpreted as Shirvanshah’s dislike of Turkic language usage. Nizami did not like these words of Shirvanshah. At any rate, there are many versions of this, I think we should include the line about his wife with reference to Bashiri, and nobody disputes the fact that Nizami wrote in Persian and contributed to Persian literature, so I think we should chose wording similar to Britannica, something like Nizami was one of the greatest poets in Persian literature, etc. That may help to prevent future edit wars. Grandmaster 18:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the majority of sources on Nizami are written in Persian. So lets not throw statements like "majority of sources", when we are not sure. Just a statement from Vahid Dastgerdi is very significant since he is recognized as amongst the foremost Nizami scholars and he is heavily quoted by Western Scholars. Ethnicity did not exist that much in the Muslim World and I totally agree. It is an unfortunate that it does today. But we are talking about ethnicity today and Kurdish mother, and more importantly Kurdish Mother tongue is very important and would be sufficient to define at least half the ethnicity. Also the role of mother was very important for Nizami as he has written so. As per the verses about Qom, it is in some manuscripts. That is why we can say His Father may have been, and we can not be 100% sure. We have over 400 manuscripts from Nizamis work and some of the ones that have Qom are more than 400 years old. As per the verse from ShirvanShah, you might want to know that the introduction of that poem was completed after the whole masterpiece was written. Furthermore the ShirvanShah Akhistan (I thought you guys have kh in the Turkish of Azarbaijan republic?) were of Persianized Arab descent, and the story of Lili o Majnoon is a pre-Islamic Arabian story which became part of the Islamic folklore and indeed the best work on it is in Persian. Either way, Nizami was the one that rendered those verses and he indeed has heavily praised the ShirvanShah and Akhistan. http://rira.ir/rira/php/?page=view&mod=classicpoems&obj=poem&id=10798 سر خیل سپاه تاجداران سر جمله جمله شهریاران خاقان جهان ملک معظم مطلق ملک الملوک عالم دارنده تخت پادشاهی دارای سپیدی و سیاهی

So your statement that he did not like those words, is actually wrong. Read the whole introduction and is full of praise for Shirvan-Shah and there is no way someone that is half Turkic would render in verse such a ridicule about Turkish language without a protest or at least ridicule of the Akhistan. While Nezami not only rendered those verses, but fully praises the Akhistan. He also praises Ferdowsi who is also by all definition nationalistic. Furthermore the Akhistan were under Seljuqs. If Nizami wanted to write Turkish, he would write it for Seljuqs (who were also heavily Persianized and did not develop Turkic language or culture) and not Persianized Arab dynasty of Shirvanshah who did not understand it. But he wrote the works patronized by the Seljuqs in Persian also. I agree with the Britannica wording..but I think his Kurdish mother and "may have been" from Qom Father should be mentioned as Dr. Meysami said. His wife (whose name may have or may not have been Afagh) is also a "may" just like the Qom part. Since it is not unanimous like the Kurdish mother. Personally I do not think we should concentrate too much on Nizamis ethnic background, but Kurdish mother is definite. The Britannica part is also well written. -- --Ali doostzadeh 21:52, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

When I said majority of sources, I meant Western and Russian ones, that are available to me. Unfortunately, I don’t speak Persian language to be able to read Iranian sources. As for Nizami’s mother, it should be mentioned that she was of Kurdish extraction. As for his father, we may also mention that according to some sources he originated from Qom, but this is disputed by many scholars, because the verse on basis of which this statement is made is not found in older manuscripts of the poem. We can think of better phrasing for this part. As for his wife, to tell you the truth I’m hearing first time from you that somebody doubts that her name was Afag and that she was a Kipchak slave girl. Nizami mentions her in his verses a number of times, and it’s not likely that he always referred to horizon. This is a view of minority of scholars and should be attributed as such. As for Ahsitan, it’s not surprising that Nizami was praising him, after all, Shirvanshah was the one who ordered the poem and paid for it. As for Ferdowsi, praising him is just appreciation of his poetry, but not necessarily endorsement of all of his views. So I think we should agree on the following. We need to mention that his mother was of Kurdish origin, we need to quote Bashiri with regard to Nizami’s wife and son, most of scholars, including Iranian ones, agree on that, and we should mention the existence of the view that his father may have originated from Qom, but that that is just one of the versions and not an established fact. And we can stile the beginning of the article according to Britannica. What do you think? Grandmaster 11:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually his praise of Ferdowsi is not about poetry only. He calls him wise and one whose words are like new bride. Either way such a strong statement of a nationalistic poet does prove a point. Yes Shirvanshah ordered the poem, but Nizami wrote the introduction (moqadameh) after the whole story was done.

Anyhow, the information of Dr. Bashiri is good. (Kurdish mother, could have been Qom father and slave girl sent by the ruler of Darband, perhaps from Qipchaq). According to one source Kamran Talatoff, Nizami's Unlikely Heroines, pg 63): According to his chronology, he lost his wife Afaq as he wrote the story of Shirin, his second wife when he completed Layli's story, and then he lost his last wife.. This part should be mentioned as well. --Ali doostzadeh 21:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I suggest we merge information from Nizami mausoleum into this article, that article is about the building, not the poet. So the article about the mausoleum should provide only brief info about the poet and deal with the structure, while the detailed information about the poet should be here. What do you think? Grandmaster 14:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. --Ali doostzadeh 21:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Still the introduction was dedicated to Shirvanshah and it’s hard to expect harsh criticism of the man who ordered the poem. Normally that part was the last to be written, because you never knew with politicians, if they still would still be ruling the country by the time you finish the poem. All Nizami’s harsh words about Turks are the words of the poem characters, and not his own. As for the part you suggest to include, I agree that it should be included. Also, Khoikhoi suggested that we ask help of Saposcat, who created many beautiful articles about Turkic poetry, to improve this article. See Fuzuli, for example. I don’t know if he would agree to work on Persian poetry article, but if you don’t mind I can ask him to have a look at this article, because the article about great Nizami should be up to the highest standards. Grandmaster 05:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You said that Nizami criticized the ShirvanShah and now you change your opinion and say he praised him. Either way Nizami was not a coward and he wrote his opinions in the verses. Sometimes It seems that you know Nizami better than Nizami knows himself. I would probably read the whole introduction first before giving various contradicting opinions. Anyways as per Nizami article, anyone informed has the right to get involved. The article on Fizuli has some strong and some weak points. I like how the user incorporated some of Fizuli's poems with English translation. But that article has mistakes and is not complete in anyway. In fact we have given a more better introduction to each of Nizamis work whereas the author of that page just lists his works. Fizuli was born in Baghdad I believe under Ottoman administration (and not Persian) and when Ismail conquered Iraq for a while, Fizuli was not that much fond of the Safavids. Anyways back to Nizami, I have read a good portion of Nizami in its original language and have some various translations. I will include it pretty soon in the article although we do not want to over-burden the article. But I will include some lines from each of his work (don't worry nothing that talks about this or that ethnic group). If you or anyone else likes to help, sure come alone. Best Regards --Ali doostzadeh 07:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don’t change my opinion. I read in some sources (Russian) that Nizami was not happy with the words of Shirvanshah and mentioned it in the verse. At the same time, the introductory part traditionally contains a praise of the patron to whom the poem is dedicated. Also, I don’t think we should take a confrontational approach when discussing the changes to the article. And no one says that article about Fuzuli is perfect, I pointed it out just to hint to how we could structure this one. Of course we should give a description of each of Nizami’s work, and that’s what will be done in that article as well. Overall, I think we agreed on most of the facts that should be mentioned in the article. Take care. Grandmaster 08:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

repeated links

I removed two borkens links from the Notes. --Ali doostzadeh 06:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The first three refs were the same website, so I think I got it right. BTW, the Notes section is only supposed to have the <references/> thing, nothing more. That's how the software works. —Khoikhoi 18:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried to give description on one of the Persian links as well fix the information on one of the links (Oxford Scholar). I think the broken link is removed. Have a look. --Ali doostzadeh 22:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, nice job. But as I said, the Notes section is only supposed to have the <references/>, not the 3 links you added. —Khoikhoi 21:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A certain user has edited the article from an ethnic centric point of view and I had to revert it

A certain user has changed the ethnicity of Shirin the Armenian princess to an Azarbaijani! This is definitely uncalled for since all sources agree she was Armenian and a Christian and was not a Turkic speaking Azarbaijani. This is totally unacceptable and I do not want to get Armenians involved in this discussion as well. Indeed Turkic speaking Iranian Azarbaijanis did not exist back then and the process of Turkification occurred way after the Sassanids. So let s leave it as scholars know it. And if you need proof, here is when Khosrows advisor and friend looks for Shirin in Armenia: برنده ره بیابان در بیابان به کوهستان ارمن شد شتابان که آن خوبان چو انبوه آمدندی به تابستان در آن کوه آمدندی چو شاپور آمد آنجا سبزه نو بود ریاحین را شقایق پیش رو بود گرفته سنگهای لاجوردی ز کسوت‌های گل سرخی و زردی

And when there is a castle build for Shirin in Armenia: پس از ماهی کز آسایش اثر یافت ز بیرون رفتن خسرو خبر یافت که از بیم پدر شد سوی نخجیر وز آنجا سوی ارمن کرد تدبیر

And when Khosrows goes looking for her in Armenia: که چون خسرو به ارمن کس فرستاد به پرسش کردن آن سرو آزاد

This is not a place to bring political situations of the last 20 years into what has been agreed upon by scholars. I will respond to the rest of the ethnic centeric viewpoint here.

The author also has misquoted some of the verses of Nizami with really poor Persian (and one of them didn't exist) although the issue of Nizamis ethnicity has been settled by scholars. Kurdish mother, and father of perhaps from Qom. This is what Nizami scholars have said and there is absolutely nothing else from his poetry to gain more information. We do not want to bring verses that are ethnic in nature weather pro or con. Here is a very degrading one from Eskandar addressed to the King of Turks and Eskandar does not address anyone else like this and indeed has full respect for the King of Persia:

1) He opened his mouth and cursed at Turks 2) and said: "Without discord/disbelief(fitnah) No Turk is born from a mother 3) do not expect anything from chinni except a movement of an eyebrow (In Persian poetry Chin refers to Uighyur western China and parts of Central Asia while Machin refers to mainland China. For example Ferdowsi calls the ruler of the Turks as Khaghan Chin) 4) because they are covenant-breakers and can not be trusted 5) The wise people of the past said it in truth 6) that there is no honor and faithfullness in chinni 7) They all have accepted Tang-Chesmi (meaning narrow eyes) (like in the mongolian race) (meaning also they can't see well..) 8) they have only seen greatness and wideness in the eyes of others 9) Have you not heared that their love is equal to hate 10) the heart of Turk-e-chinni is full of crookedness 11) If the Turk-chinni had any honor 12) then the earth would be clothed under chinn (Part of Eskandar Nama)

Or the ones where Nizami wrote from the Shirvan shah desisting Turkish language and manners and Nizami praises him heavily.

Now this user wrote this verses and I will analyze it:

In this Ephiopia my Turkishness is not appreciated, That's why my tasty doga is not eaten. In Persian: "Torkiemra der in Hebesh neherend, lacherem dugbaje-hesh nehorend". (From: Seven beauties/Haft paykar, fourth epic poem of Nizami).

First the Persian is horrible: It is Torkiyam raa dar in Habash Nakharand, laajaram Dooghbaayeh Khos Nakhorand.

This is in the end of the story of moral advices and it is when the many moral advices have been given. After finishing all the moral advices (which none of them have anything to do with ethnicity!), the poets complains that many people might not take his advice. Here is wilsons translation after 200 lines of moral advice:

Be no disciple aspirationless do not be weak of faith in trust in God I, solver of a hundred knotty points, am village-chief, but in the village not If from the road a guest should chance to come, who will there be to set a tray for him? Intelligence discerns what I now say, and what I aim at in this hint thrown out. At destitution I am little vexed of him who’s destitute is my complaint. This Ethiopia likes not Turkish wares hence it will have not palatable curds Whilst in this furnace which one’s nature ripes as grape unripe I still was somewhat raw, Fortune made use of me as grape unripe, made of me verjuice-tutty for the sight. Since I have reached the state of the ripe grape, I’ve suffered often from the stings of wasps. The wine which is a spiritual draught for earth is not the grape worth more than this? I follow up the path they know of me hence frozen water I am called by them. Water when it is frozen, as they say, is not a fount of water, but of gold.

You see this has nothing to do with any sort of ethnicity! And since Turk in Persian meant beautiful lover as opposed to Ethipions in Persian poetry (and these were the mongloid turks as Nizami calls them repeatedly Cheshm Tang (narrow eyed)), he is saying that this moral beauty is not bought in this ugly Ethiopia (Habash). This has nothing to do with ethnicity. After 300 lines of advice, the teacher hopes that his advices will be taken seriously. Else Nizami did not live in Ethiopia. And he does not have even one verse of Turkish (assuming he could speak it) while there were certaintly Seljuqids who could have helped him if he wanted to compose. The fact is that not even one verse of turkish poetry exists from the area before the Mongol invasion. Rumi another Persian poets says: “Gah Tork, Gah Hindu, Gah Zangi, Gah Rumi” (sometimes I am a Turk, sometimes a hindu, sometimes a black, sometimes a Roman). Turk (and these are central Asian Mongloid Turks) symbolically means a cruel lover, beautiful person, a plunderer and also sun (because of the yellow color). A Hindu means dark, night, and also servant. A Zangi (African) means night, total darkness. Even his name is Rumi (Roman/Greek), but this does make Greek/Roman although he had 50 verses of Greek also. A Roman means day, light, total whiteness in Persian poetry. I hope this verse is resolved.

Secondly Doogh (yogurt drink and yogurt) is a Persian word etymologically and its Tukish equivalent is 'Ayraan'. Dooghbaa is a traditional milk based drink but it is in no way Turkish as the word itself is Persian. Sa'adi has referred to it in his poems as well. The etymology is Persian (Dehkhoda). In fact the turkish equivalent for Dooghbaa would be Ayraan-something. Doogh is Persian meaning white (Yogurt) and baa means meal. Like the other word Shoorbaa used for certain variety of soups.

The author then continues:

Turks, the power of which has risen (towered), Posesse the kingdom (governing) by means of justice (fairness). Since you cherish tyranny, cruelty, Then you are not a Turk, but a Hindu-robber (thief). n Persian: Dovlete torkan ke bolendi kereft, Memleket ez dadpecendi kereft, Chonke to bidadkeri perveri, Tork neyi hendu-ye bidadkeri". (From: Treasure of Mysteries (Secrets), first epic poem of Nizami).

Again poor Persian and mispronunciation of words. It is Dowlat Torkan ke Bolandi Gereft - Mamlekat az dad pasandi gereft

This is actually a play on words. The story is in Makhzan al-asraar and it is about a complaint of an old lady (pir-e-zan) to the Seljuq ruler Sanjar. And since Turks in Persian poetry symbolically means ruler/plundered and hindu as a slave/plundered (this symbolism came to Persian poetry though the devastating campaigns of Ghaznavids in India). It is saying that you are acting like a slave and not a master. Again this has nothing to do with Nizami's ethnicity.

The author continues:

Ganja, having tied me up, has firmly taken me, Iraq's wealth I hold without node" (From: Treasure of Mysteries (Secrets), first epic poem of Nizami. Note: Ganja, the capital of Arran/Azerbaijan, was part of the Seljuq Turkic Empire at the time of Nizami with capital in Baghdad -- hence Iraq. Meanwhile, Iran did not exist as a separate or otherwise independent or semi-independent unified state since the 7th century AD and until resurrection in 16th century under Shah Ismail Khatai Sefevi).

Actually Iran was a common term and it referred to a region. Even the Seljuqs used Iran when referring to Iranian territories. So does Nizami. As does Qatran Tabrizi and many other poets. Indeed Nizami refers to the Shirvan Shah not only as the ruler of Arran, but also one who is truly by heart the ruler of all of Iran. What you might say is that “Iranian” state was not created until Safavids just like the republic of Azarbaijan was not created as a state until 19th century. The Seljuqs although Turkic originally adopted Persian culture and manner. And this has no bearing on Nizamis ethnicity since hundreds if not thousands of other Persian poets are known from the Seljuq era. The word Iran is used 20 times in Nizamis poetry. When he praises the Shirvan Shah he says: “In naameh naghz nagofteh behtar – taavoos javaaneh jofteh behtar – khaaseh molki cho shah sehrvan – shervaan cheh keh shahryaar Iran” Translation: This well written story has never been better, It is as beutifull as young peacock throne, For a king like the king of Shirvan, Not just Shirvan but all of Iran!”. So Iran as geographical entity has been used many times before the Safavid era. Specially it has been used in Samanid, Ghaznavid, Seljuqid..eras.

Now to this verse:

If my (dear) Turkic (wife Appaq/Afak) escaped from (my) tent, o God, (I beg you) take care of my Turkic-born (son Muhammed)!" (From: Khosrov and Shirin, second epic poem of Nizami)

First of all it is Afagh, not Appaq. Secondly the verse before it is insulting:

چو ترکان گشته سوی کوچ محتاج به ترکی داده رختم را به تارج اگر شد ترکم از خرگه نهانی خدایا ترک زادم را تو دانی

Cho torkaan gashteh sooyeh kooch mohtaaj Beh torki daadeh rakhtam raa beh taaraaj Agar shod torkam az khargah nahaani Khodaayaa tork-zaadm raa to daani

After the death of the slave girl sent to him by the Sultan of Darband, Nizami writes: ‘’since Turks are indeed in need of migration, my wife plundered my belongings away in a Turkish manner, if My Turkish wife escaped from the tent, O god you best know about my Tork-Zaad”

Nizami uses the word Tork-zaad (born of a Turkish mother). Which in Persian literature lexicon means a son of Turkish slave. That is an Iranian or an Arab married to Turkish slave. For example Ferdowsi says about Hormozd the Sassanid king whose father was a Turk: “Sokhan bas kon ze Hormozd Tork-zaad – keh andar zamaaneh mabaad aan nejaad” (End now the discussion and talk about Hormzod Tork-zaad, may such a race (half turk-half Persian) never exist any time!). Look at Dekhodas dictionary for other examples. So this verse actually shows Nizami was not a Turk, else there would not be any need to use such a term..

Finally the word turk has gained many meanings in Persian literature like the word Qafchaq has. It simply means a beautiful person and it is used heavily in this manner by Attar, Hafez, Rumi, Ferdowsi.. and etc. So even this part about his wife Afaq can be taken to mean she was beautiful like Turks of Central Asia.

Finally lets take a look at this verse:

From Khazar mountains till Chinese sea, Whole land I see full of Turks" (From: Iskender-nameh, 1199-1201, fifth and last epic poem of Nizami. Note: this quote is said by Alexander the Great in the poem).

Actually in the Eskandar Nama, it is made clear that Azarbaijan is a Zoroastrian and Persian strong-hold. This section is about the country of Russia and Alexanders incursion in Russia and how he uses Turks and Russians against each other. Khazars borders has always been from the Darband upward. Both the Sassanids and the Caliphates kept the border at the Darband and the mountains beyond until the Russians destroyed the Khazar empire. So I do not see what this quote has anything to do with Nizamis ethnicity. He mentions Indians, Blacks, Russians, Chinese, Turks, Persians, Romans.. in the Eskandar-nama. So I am not sure what this author is trying to prove.

Finally Nizami uses the word Parsi(Persian) (11) times all in positive manner. The word “Iran” is quoted 20 times. Indeed two of his epics is about full praisal of Sassanid Iran who were enemies of Khazars and Gok-Turks (first two Turkic empires). And in the Alexandar (Dhul-Qarnain) story, the King of Persia is actually praised by Alexander and Azarbaijan is a Zoroastrian Persian strong-hold. I can come up with literally hundreds of verses where he is either praising Iranian or Iranian culture or has some connection with Iran. Culturally, Nizamis Persian poetry is clearly part of the Islamo-Iranian heritage. So lets leave the discussion of his ethnicity to what serious Nizami scholars have agreed upon and is certain. 100% Kurdish mother. Perhaps a father from Qom. And Perhaps a Turkish slave as his wife named Qafqaz. Shirin also is an Armenian in Khosrow o Shirin. Alexander is Greek/Roman (and do not get into that macedonian argument since to Nizami he was Greek). Lili o Majnoon is Arab story. So Nizami has a connection to everyone and is universal. If there was anything else that would make his ethnicity clearer, then scholars would have already shown it. So we will never know more than this with certainty. BTW I also have PhD and lets not write ethnic based articles and then refer to it in Misplaced Pages. I say lets honor Nezami instead of fighting. His poetry pretty much speaks for itself with regards to the culture he belonged to. Else pretty soon Iranians, Armenians, and people from the Azarbaijani republic and Kurds also will be bickering. I have found many english translations of Nizami's verses (without any ethnic nature although clearly about Iranian Sassanid folklore) that I will put up soon in this article. --Ali doostzadeh 05:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for a lengthy talk, but you are making many misguided assumptions and unscholarly conclusions, while simultaneously attacking anyone who disagrees with you, yet trying to look with peaceful and good intentions. Had this been true, you and a certain other user would note have been 1) deleting verses from Nizami that I have provided (and my verses include far more bibliographic information as to where they are from); 2) by incorrectly providing the dates of Nizami's 5 epic poems, as well as being wrong about the order in which they were written, 3) by denying that in addition to the 5 epic poems (Khamse) Nizami also had a Divan of many lyrical poems, with some 2,000 beyts (couplets) available to us today, 4) by incorrectly translating Nizami from Persian due to not being an expert in 12th century Farsiye Dari language, and more importantly, ignoring the fact that it was written by an Azerbaijani such as Nizami, which is testified by his use (spelling) of certain Persian words in an Azerbaijani fashion (e.g., munjug instead of bundjug) and usage of several Turkic words in the poems (e.g., usaq, alichaq, yataq, bichaq, chariq, papax, chorab, etc), 5) thinking that if Nizami described Turks as with slanted eyes, it is an insult (?! only to a modern-day racist perhaps, but to the rest of us, it is a sign of beauty), 6) talking about Mongols and yellow-skinned (?!) Turks when Mongols WERE NOT EVEN KNOWN TO THE REGION YET and Turks being always WHITE-skinned in Nizami's poems and an example of beauty and courage, 7) by ignoring the affirmation of Nizami's Azerbaijani-Turk ethnicity by multiple scholars of different origin, from different countries, whether Russian or German, Ukrainian or Uzbek, Jewish or even ARMENIAN!

I can go on and on, debunking your talk. Part of your problem is that you, like majority of Iranians, do not have access to ACADEMIC editions of Nizami's poems. Do you know the difference between an academic, scholarly edition and a simple one such as the one you rely upon? An Academic edition compares, critically and textologically analyzes ALL existing manuscripts of Nizami's poems around the world, whilst yours relies on a few of them in Iran. That's why you keep on talking about Nizami's father being from Qom (Kum) when 1) there is no proof of that nature from Nizami himself and 2) and such a line, albeit not about his father, but himself, was added to the later editions of the manuscripts, but absent from all earlier one's, such as one done in 1361 and 1365 and held in Paris National Library. That's why such giants of Oriental studies as prof. E.Bertels dismissed these allegations about Qom -- which was supported by none other than another notable scholar and very famous Armenian poetess M.Shaginyan in her 1950s book -- all of which I dilligently reproduced.

Similarly, she (Shaginyan) dismissed the mistaken assumption of Shirin being Armenian -- how poorly educated one has to be to say that Shirin was Armenian if she just travelled (i.e, not lived!) to Armenia, a geographic concept to begin with as there was no independent Armenia either in Nizami's time or in Khosrov time. I guess F.Kafka was ethnic German or ethnic Czech, since he wrote in German and lived in Prague -- but in reality he was Jewish. Ayatollah Khomeini was probably French -- after all, he travelled and lived in France. And I guess myself, along with you, are pure Anglo-Saxons for writing in English. For your education, Shirin was an Azerbaijani (Arrani) Turk -- she had those slanted eyes, that you consider an insult, she drank kumis (the Turkic - nomadic - horse's milk), her ansestor, as mentioned by Nizami, was "mythical king of Turan Afrasiyab", who was also ancestor of Mihin-Banu -- the queen of Arran (Barda) and Shirin's aunt, who pocessed and ruled all of Arran and Armenia. All of this shows that your knowledge of Nizami's works is shallow, it is not enough to be able to read in Farsi or read at all -- one has to know the complex history of the region and have other analytical skills to make proper assumptions and determinations.

Instead of deleting the quotes from Nizami that I provide, the links to other websites that I provide, the biographical information that I cite (!), better add your own fully-cited information.

--70.108.235.71 17:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me start with your sentences: Thanks for a lengthy talk, but you are making many misguided assumptions and unscholarly conclusions, while simultaneously attacking anyone who disagrees with you, yet trying to look with peaceful and good intentions.

Also it is better to sign in with your previous name or at least the acronym of it (AB).

Again you wrote a lot (I might add with some arrogance) but you were not able to prove anything! Persian is language I know well because I am from Iran. Actually the Persian you typed was terrible and makes the verses not rhyme. And you did not know Dooghbaa and Shoorbaa are Persian words and not Turkish. So you lack basic etymological skills. And by the way you seem to be an economic major (google search), and are not definitely an expert in Persian or a Nizami scholar or Persian literature Professor! So your own composition should be talked about within the discussion page. Doogh means Yogurt based drink in Persian and it is not Turkish word. So you lack basic Persian skills, whereas I can tell easily which word is Persian, which is Turkish, which is Arabic from reading any manuscript. The other word you mentioned Chorab (Sharab) is actually arabic word meaning wine! The word Manjuq/Monjuq could be Persian (Dekhoda) and before Nizami, Asadi Tusi (from Tus Khorasan, the homeland of Ferdowsi) uses it in Garshasp Nama (another Persian epic poem about the ancestor of Rustam). Different pronounciation of the same word with one root exists in many languages. For example Shahr (city) شهر, Shaar شار Both are used by Ferdowsi. I can keep going on and on and you should provice at least the actual verse in arabic script so readers can judge and not just throw out few words. You probably can not read Persian which is Nizamis language. And by the way Sa'adi, Hafez and Ferdowsi have used some some Turkish words as well, so are you going to claim them as Turkish? Or should I claim Fizuli as a Persian since some of his verses are much more Persian than Turkish. Using a few Turkish terms, specially to do with military, tent/camp (alachiq) is common in Persian. Khaghani even uses some Georgian words. And by the way it is better to give a refrence and write the arabic script version off each of the words you claim, and bring the verses. I will show that other Persian poets could have used a few terms. Indeed Ferdowsi and Nizami use much more Greek terms, but are you going to call them Greek. And above Greek, they use much more Arabic terms. So please do not weave so much stuff in order to make claims. The fact is that we only know 100% Nizamis mother was Kurdish. Other than that, some manuscripts have made a reference to him being from Qom, and this is a 'perhaps', 'maybe', etc.

1) I did not delete any of your verses, and I have brought them and responded to them in the discussion page. Discussion of Nizamis ethnicity does need 100 lines or else I would put my article also refuting yours and put much more lines supporting Iranian father

2) I did not incorrectly put Nizamis dates. These have been manipulated by various users over time. Experts are still not 100% sure about the exact dates of all them. (Said Nafisi). That is why information was taken from Dr. Iraj Bashiri's page and I will update it accordingly to it. 100% certainty on the date of composition of each manuscript does not exist.

3) Nizami, if he had a diwan (according to dowlat shah samarqandi about 20,000 verses), it has been lost. No serious Nizami scholar has referenced the lines outside of panj ganj and the verses outside of panj ganj are indirect attributions that can not be proved today. They have been published by by Vahid Dastgerdi by their authencity is not gauranteed like the Panj Ganj. All Nizami has available to scholars today is the 5 ganj. There are false attributions to many ancient authors. Even Hafez, Ferdowsi, Attar, Rumi. Only the 5 ganj are known from Nizami. This sort of thing unfortunately has happened and attributing verses to different authors is nothing new.

4) Fourthly Nizami uses Perso-arabic script. Not Azarbaijani script. And he does not say naharand, but he says nakharand. I can read the original Persian script and so please do not write false claims. You were not there to here Nizami pronouncing. Persian has kh and Nizami has written kh. If some one well verses in a language, he would pronounce it like the speakers of that language! And Nizami was certainly amongst the top seven greatest Persian poets and had full mastery of the language. And for example you did not pronounce the word Dooghbaa correctly, while there no unambiguity for any reader in Persian. And please provide the verses and not just a word here and there. For each claim, please provide the verses in Persian. And Also the verse before and after it.

5) There is no talk of racism. Nizami describes Turks as Tang-Chesm (slant-eyes). So does Hafez. So does Rumi. So does Sanai. So do many Islamic compositions. And who said narrow eyes ( slant-eyes) are not pretty? You are the one being racist. There is no reference to Turks white skin in any of Nizamis poem. (by the way the tone of the skin could be light and one can be of Mongoloid race like many Chinese).

But here is many references to narrow eyes.

Here is several:

به نِفرين تُرکان زَبان بَرگُشاد // که بی فِتنِه تُرکی زِ مادَر نَزاد//زِ چينی بِجُز چينِ اَبروُ مَخواه //ندارند پِيمان مردم نِگاه // سُخن راست گُفتند پيشينيان // که عَهد و وَفا نيست در چينيان // همه تَنگ چِشمی پَسنديده اند// فَراخی به چَشمِ کَسان ديده اند// خبر نی که مهر شما کين بُوَد// دل تُرکِ چين پُر خَمُ و چين بُوَد// اگر تُرکِ چينی وَفا داشتی // جهان زيرِ چين قَبا داشتی

(Eskandar Nama)

سرآينده ترك با چشم تنگ فروهشته گيسو به گيسوي چنگ

(Eskandar Nama)

When Eskandar conquers the Qifqach: همه تنگ چشمان مردم فریب فرشته ز دیدارشان ناشکیب (Eskandar Nama)

When Bahram talks to one his servant and compares to her tatar:

گفت کای تنگ چشم تاتاری صید ما را به چشم می ناری ؟ صید ما کز صفت برون آید در چنان چشم تنگ چون آید

I can also show it from about 10 other classical poets and authors that describe turks as tang-cheshm. So if you want to make a point from now on, show the relevant verses.

1) I have access to all Western and Iranian sources. I read a lot of classical poetry while your fundamental problem is that you can not read and understand Persian well. Like many people in Caucasian Azarbaijan. 2) The USSR sources are not much help to scholars in much aspect because they have been manipulated by ethno-centeric scholars many times. For example Tajiks were forced to learn that Nizami Ganjavi was an Azarbaijani (Turk), but now after the breakup, he is an Iranian in the textbook. Everyone today knows the many nonsense aspect of soviet histiography. Even Stalin made false claims and got involved. There is a good article in Persian by the way written by an Armenian scholar which totally shows how many soviet scholars after the breakup have said Nizami is Persian and had nothing to do with Turks or Turkish culture. (Indeed if he did, he would write about Kor-Oghlu and Dede-Qorqod instead of Sassanid Persian stories). There is a lot of Armenians, Iranians, Western, Russian.. scholars that have affirmed Nizamis Iranian ethnicity. Specially many Russians after the soviet breakup. One famous RUSSIAN Iranist said: Nizami Ganjavi is one of the greatest thinkers and poets of the middle ages and belongs to the exceptional heritage of Persian literature. He had no connection with the current culture of Azarbaijan. And Azerbaijanis (he means the caucus ones that consider themselves Turks) are making a useless effort to claim and make him of their own. At the time of Nizami, Azeri-Turks did not exist in Azarbaijan. (sovietkaya kultura (soviet culture) magazine, 27 of December, 1988).

Read this article for other former soviet union scholars that have refuted your theory after the breakup:

And btw what counts is what the most recent sources say. If one Armenian scholar in 1950 said something (and this I haven't seen proof), tens of Armenian scholars are saying the opposite now. Specially with the break up of soviets. At the time of the USSR, such a matter after the verdict of Stalin was not open to much debate! And it could mean being forced into Siberia. Many USSR scholars were coered by different methods and did not have freedom of speech and thought in many matters.

Those multiple USSR scholars when it comes to ethnicity do not have much value and what matters is what the scholars are saying today. And finally you can not prove it from one verse that Nizamis other half was 100% anything from any ethnicity. Encyclopedia Britannica has left that portion as blank. So for now Kurds will claim the ethnic glory, if you will.

3) About his father being from Qom, there is perhaps and we did not say it with certainty! We said some manuscripts. And these manuscripts BTW are 400 years old and actually biography books more than 400 year old have mentioned this. Even if this is 100% false, we not know for 100% since it still in some manuscript. Because even if there is a manuscript older than it, it does not automatically 100% refute it, since multiple manuscripts could have been extant. So that is why we use the word Perhaps. Even if some scholars dismiss it, some scholars have used words "perhaps", "could have been","maybe." . Like CE Wilson, Iraj Bashi and Julia Scott Meysami. So nothing is 100%. Only his Kurdish mother is 100%. That why we did say perhaps, could have been, maybe...

4) Again Shirin was Armenian. And I have shown it from the material above. Parviz (Persian name) sends his friend Shapur (Persian name) to Armenia to pick her up. Indeed Shirin is a Persian name as well and Armenian is about 15% middle Persian. Whereas the earliest manuscripts from Turkish, like the Orkhon inscription, are relatively pure. Her mother is the ruler of Armenia. If you can read Persian it is clear. In google do a search "shirin armenian nizami", see what you get. Many scholarly references prop up. In fact "Shirin-e-Arman" is famous saying in Persian poetry. And by the way, as per your other false claim, the word Turan does not show up once in the Khorsow and Shrin. Neither does Afrasiyab. You see, I have all of Nizami in original Persian and I can look up any word. So it is better if you provide the verses instead of just talking about it! Bring the actual Persian verses. This point for me is sufficient to see you have a major political agenda. That is not acceptable in Misplaced Pages. There is absolutely no mention of Shirin being a Turk and Azarbaijani. And Caucasian Arranians (Albanians) were not Turks either. They were a Christian people speaking Caucasian languages whose church merged with the Armenian Church. Also Dr. Moin and Dehkhoda have both also called Shirin Armenian. And the Turanians were not Turks either as all their names in Avesta are Iranian. Like Afrasiyaab, Piran, Peshang, Garsivaz... Caucasian Albania or Arran historically is not part of Azarbaijan. The overwhelming majority of classic sources consider it a separate land. Although sometimes because of administrative reasons, it has been considered part of Armenia or Azarbaijan (below the Aras river). That and Turan is another story though. But you need to bring actual verses about Shirin being a Turk! If you can not and persist changing her identity, I will get other Wikipedians, Armenians and Iranian Wikipedians involved. I have shown from the above verses how Shapur, that is Khusraw's friend, goes to Armenian to introduce Shirin for Khusraw.

Here is another Persian poet, Vahshi baafqi (1524-1576) writing about Shirin the Armenian and clearly and explicitly mentions her as Armenian:

که تا با تلخ کامی‌ها برآید مگر شیرین لبی را درخورآید چو فرهاد آرزو را در درون کشت کلید آرزوها یافت در مشت به کلی کرد چون از خود کرانه بیامد تیر آهش بر نشانه نمود از دولت عشق گرامیش اثر در کام شیرین تلخ کامیش چنان بد کن شه خوبان ارمن سر شکر لبان شیرین پر فن

And in another one from Amir Khosrow Dehlavi (1253-1325) who clearly and explicity mentions her as an Armenian:

که در چین بود از ارمن نقشبندی نبشته نقش شیرین بر پرندی

And btw her mothers name was not Mihin-Banu(turkish pronounciation), but it was Mahin-Banu. Which is a Persian word, Mahin meaning greatest. If you want your rhymes to work, then pronouncing the word correctly is important. So if I take your argument, then Nizami definitely pronounced words in Persian. BTW both Mahin Banu and Shirin are Persian words and as I said Armenian is about 15% Parthian-Pahlavi. Classical Armenian is much more Parthian-Pahlavi. But samples of classical Turkish (Orkhon manuscript) shows very little Iranic influence and perhaps a few Soghdian words (atlhough Shirin and Mahin-Banu are Persian Iranian and not Soghdian Iranian).

5) I can claim you are a racist. Let us do away with childish characterization of those who do not share your POV. Nizami uses the term Narrow-eyes for Turks as I shown above. There is nothing racist about it, since many other Persian poets have used it. And racism is irrelevant here and has nothing to do with discussion when someone is describing physical characteristics. The harsh verses about Khaghan Turk are also not racist. Since concept of racism does not apply to those days..

6) We know 100% Nizamis mother was a Kurd. His father we will never know. And the only thing reliable from Nizami available to us is his 5-ganj. Any other verses outside of this is attributed and not taken to be authentic. BTW, not to take your claims seriously, but Nizami was not even fully Azarbaijani as claim, since he was at least half Kurdish! And today scholars look for both mother and father to ascertain ethnicity. I would guess by probability that his other half was Kurdish since virtually all Kurds marry with other Kurds.

7) Finally Nizamis description of Azarbaijan is Persian Zoroastrian stronghold. All his works are Persian. None of them have anything to do with Turkish culture like Dede-Qorqord or Kor-Oghlu. They are about ancient Persian and other Islamic folklores. But nothing to do with Turkish folklore.

8) We do not want to put 100 lines of bickering about Nizami’s ethnicity in the Misplaced Pages article. People that will read his poems will pretty much figure it out what culture he belonged to. Even Stalin claimed that Nizami had Turkish works, while no scholar takes such a matter seriously, since Turkish poetry first showed up in the region during Ilkhanid era. We have agreed with other users not to make this article about Nizamis ethnicity but about Nizami Ganjavi. I can come with hordes of arguments. Like why would Nizami constantly praise Ferdowsi and the Persian nationalistic dynasty of the Sassanids. Or why did he belittle Turks through Shirvanshah and praised the ShirvanShah. Or why he doesn't even have one verse in Turkish. And why he derides the Khaghan of Turks so badly. And why he has written that he has looked through Persian, Arabic, Bukhari, Tabari sources, but not Turkish. And many many more arugments. That is why I moved your comments to the talk page about ethnicity. And btw Iranians have so many excellent Persian poets that Nizami Ganjavi is only one of them. So far us it is in no way a life and death issue and there is no need to falsify his background. He was Kurdish mother and I would say most likely a Kurdish father (or perhaps his father was from Qom). The reason is that the name 'raise' Kurd means lady chieftan of Kurdish tribe for his mother and usually Kurds marry within themselves. Specially cheiftans who are of higher class. Of course there is exceptions to the rule, but that is the case overwhelmingly. The fact is that even the translations of Nizami Ganjavi to Azarbaijani Turkish came later than many other modern languages (including English, Russian, French..) and this means Nizami did not have any profound effect on the Oghuz Turkish culture although some Turkish and Indian poets read his work in Persian and were influenced by it.

BTW I had added some of Nizamis poetry unrelated to ethnicity and you deleted it. This is unacceptable as the main point of the article is to write about Nizami. Other users have agreed as well.

--Ali doostzadeh 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Extensive comments and corrections are necessary to Ali Doostzadeh’s talk, since he either is very partial, preferring to concentrate on one and not another, or severely misinterprets some facts or mistranslates and misattributes, or is outright false on others. This is a continuation of the general policy of chauvinism, discrimination and racism displayed by some extremists and which results in the well-known events underway right now in South Azerbaijan’s (North Iran) cities of Tabriz and Urmiya, where 100,000’s Azerbaijanis are protesting the denial of their basic rights and general discrimination by the Iranian government and few Persian chauvinists (chauvinism, an extreme form of nationalism, is present in all cultures and people, by no means limited to any one nation in particular). By the way, the constant references that one writes in a “bad” Persian language are another testament of this – although, if I were on the place of the author, I would pay attention to the horrible English spelling and grammar, as well as mistyped Russian (e.g., “sovietkaya kultura” instead of “Sovetskaya kul’tura”) and even mistranslated Persian/Farsi (on that a little bit below).

1) No one has the right to delete any fact-based, fully cited and attributed information or quotes from either Nizami himself or well-known academics and scholars on that issue, especially Russian, Azerbaijani, Jewish, Ukrainian, and in general Soviet – who have made by far the biggest research on Nizami’s heritage in the 20th century, making the most complete ACADEMIC editions of Nizami’s all five epic poems (Khamse, which is an Arabic term by the way). In other words, anyone who does not know Russian language and is not familiar with the research and scholarly works of Russian-language academics is very severely and negatively affected. Any serious Iranian researcher, be it prof. Meisami or prof. Talattof, are at least somewhat acquainted with Russian-language sources and pay tribute to them – while simultaneously revealing the not-very-pleasant details about some Iranian editors and scholars, such as Sarvatian, Zanjani, Hakimi, Muvahhid, Rashid and Ja’fari. Thus, knowledge of Russian for studying Nizami – and any other Azerbaijani, Uzbek, or Armenian and Persian-Tajik poet – is essential and no less important than knowledge of Farsi/Persian and its classical literary version, Dari.

To sum-up, anyone deleting any facts is in essence vandalizing the page and Misplaced Pages’s rules on vandalizing of pages must apply. Only falsifications and mistakes should be deleted, not objective facts and truth.

Meanwhile, I've never willingly deleted anything that was factual or accurate. I did indeed, REVERT the page back to its original -- why should I spend hours of my time painstakingly editing, while someone comes in and simply deletes my edits COMPLETELY, including the stuff unrelated to ethnicity, such as more correct dates of Nizami's completion of the poems? I did not start this edit-revert nonsense. Hence, if you or others want respect for your work and efforts -- learn to respect others too. And stop your friends from vandalizing the page.

2) Whilst Farsi/Persian language is highly important when studying Nizami’s works, we should keep in mind that I) it was a 12th century Dari, classical literature Persian language; II) it was written in Azerbaijan (Arran), a very distinct and separate geographic, cultural and political entity from either Persia or on a grander scale Iran; III) Iran did not exist as an independent state in Nizami’s time – indeed, Nizami was born, lived and died in the Turkic Seljuk Empire, centered in Baghdad, Iraq (and Nizami mentions “Iraq” more often than “Iran” in his poems) and its constituent part, the Azerbaijani Atabek (Atabeg) state of the Ildenizid’s, the Great/Grand Atabeks (Atabegs) of the Seljuk court and regents of the Turkic Seljuk Sultan himself (in essence, it were the Great/Grand Atabeks from Azerbaijan who ruled the Turkic Seljuk Empire under Sultans Togrul II and Togrul III). To them he dedicated many of his poems, such as “Khosrov and Shirin”. Also, IV) Persian/Farsi, is just like any other language – no more, no less, thus let’s not over-idealize or otherwise idolize it. Which also means that the best way to understand the subtle and complex poetry of such a grand master of poetry, philosophy, and even science as Nizami is to rely on academic editions of his poems and on professional translations or commentary – since each word has many different meanings, especially depending on the context, and sometimes simultaneously means several things – and of course the fact that Nizami wrote in 12th century and we live in 21st century does not help much either. Hence, unless anyone here is an academician and can produce scholarly credentials of being proficient in 12th century Dari, cool down a bit and listen to what world-renowned scholars have to say. Being a native speaker of the 21st century Persian/Farsi is not sufficient – especially since much of our discussions centers on various historical facts and references.

Just so that my hot-headed, trigger- and vandalism-happy opponents understand the point very well, here’s from an Iranian news agency Mehr (published on January 2004), about Dr. Jalal Khaleqi Motlaq, who “is a well-known name in the Farsi language and Iranian literature. He currently lives in Germany and has been editing the Shahnameh for 34 years.” It would be best if all of you read it in entirety, but two main points that he drives home is that academic editions are a hard, but very necessary work, and that despite his study object, Firdowsi, wrote in classic Persian Dari, Iranians had to use the Russian (Soviet) edition of Shah-nameh for decades because that was the only academic edition. Here’s his opinion (remember, he is the #1 authority on Firdowsi, who in his turn is the #1 poet for Persians): “Unfortunately, although Iranians have the knowledge and capability of large tasks they are indolent. Although Orientalists do not understand some issues, they follow academic methods and therefore their corrections are better and perfect”.

3) Nizami’s mother was indeed Kurdish – a very well known fact, which is well acknowledged (in all commentaries to all books) of, for example, Soviet and particularly, Azerbaijani, editions. However, let us not forget, than neither Iran/Persia, nor Azerbaijan, nor other regional states are like Israel – nationality passes with father, not mother. Also, Nizami’s mother, Raiseh, was from the noble family of the Shaddadis, who ruled Azerbaijan (Arran) two centuries prior from their capital in Ganja. Hence, she was very much an Azerbaijani Kurd – as opposed to Anatolian or Iranian or other Kurds – and cultural, linguistic and other subtleties associated with any one region are important. Hence, any attacks and farce created by some irresponsible users is irrelevant, and Kurdish mother does not translate into Nizami being Persian or even Iranian.

4) Nizami’s first (first, not third, as Ali Doostzadeh mistakenly claims) and most beloved wife, Afak (Appaq), was Turkic, she was Qipchaq (Kypchaq, Kipchak). This is a very well known fact and anyone trying to dispute that is just as ridiculous as anyone, for example, who says that it was not “Kord” but “Gord”. Nizami himself says she was his “Kipchak idol” in the “Khosrov and Shirin”. Likewise, her true name was Appaq, which means “white” in Turki, and the only reason it became “Afak” was because Arabic doesn’t have the “p” letter and substitutes it with “f”. Also important, all of this is not said by me – this is from all and every scholar who bothered to write on this matter. I wonder why none of those professional scholars thought of what Ali Doostzadeh says about “Tork-zaad \ Turkic slave” or “Afaagh \ Horizon” – I guess none of those giants of Oriental studies knew Persian as well as Mr. Doostzadeh does. Indeed, Mr. Doostzadeh might think he has achieved a breakthrough in the studies of Nizami’s heritage with his sensational writings, but in reality it is all just unsubstantiated talk.

Since we know that Appaq was uneducated and from the steppes (she was a slave given to Nizami by the Derbent ruler), which basically meant she knew only her native language, Turki, and she obviously called herself – as did Nizami in his also native Turki – Appaq, and not Afak. Hence, any one user, who salivates and angrily attacks the “Appaq” spelling, is just incompetent.

Moreover, in the very same beyts, Nizami admits that he modeled his heroine Turkic (Azerbaijani) Shirin after Appaq (Afak): “You too, my Afak, vanished (died) as Shirin”.

And he continues “Allah, take care of my Turkic-born (son)!” This is yet another proof of who was she (Afak/Appaq), their son (Muhammed) and also Nizami himself, since once again, nationality passed through father, not mother, and to write about a “Turkic-born” like this, without clearly identifying whether it means only from a Turkic mother or both parents, for supposedly “Persian” Nizami would be strange. All bizarre opinions that Nizami would somehow mean Turkic-born as derogatory are without any merit – why would Nizami insult his only and beloved son, to whom he dedicated so many verses and sections in his poems, and as such, insult himself, as the father of that Turkic-born “slave”? Moreover, what is anyone talking about when Nizami decided to legally marry Appaq/Afak, make her his legal first wife, instead of just keeping her as a slave and potentially, concubine?! Where is the derogatory and insulting in this that Mr. Doostzadeh keeps on preaching about?!

5) The Qom issue – neither Nizami, nor his father, were from Qom, central Iran – as I stated many times, this is a proven fact by such authorities of Nizami-studies as academician E.E.Bertels and Armenian (!) poetess Marietta Shaginyan. This line was a later addition to the manuscripts and was absent from earlier, more reliable and better, editions, such as the 1361 and 1365 editions in the Paris National Library.

But just in case someone wishes to keep bringing it up, I am afraid they would be shooting themselves in the foot. The problem with all this –and with the subject of Nizami – is that some circles, among which are various Persian chauvinists, is that they 1) deny all history and heritage to Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani people, and 2) assume that all of Iran was 100% or even absolute majority Persian or otherwise Iranian-populated. This is not true today, and was not true in Nizami’s time – or before him. It is a well-known fact that Persians came into Iran and north to Azerbaijan around the end of the 7th century B.C. – 6th century B.C. (see Encyclopedia Britannica).

For example, Arabic historian at-Tabari (d. 923 A.D.) wrote than already in 671 A.D., when Arabs conquered Kukhistan in Khorasan (Iran), it was ruled by Turks, and specifically mentions Nizak-tarhan, who concluded a peace deal with Arabs (this and much more other interesting info is from the #1 authority on Turkic history in Russia, prof. L.N.Gumilev, as well as Uzbek prof. Sh.Kamaliddinov and others). None other than a Persian historian Rawandi wrote in his treatise dedicated to sultan of Rum Giyas ed-Din Keykhusrev (1192-1196, i.e., a contemporary of Nizami): “Thanks to almighty Allah … in the lands of Arabs, Persians, Byzanthians and Rus, the word belongs to Turks…”

This is not to say that Turkic people were a majority everywhere or were autochthonous – but they certainly were in large, sizeable numbers, sometimes as a majority and often as rulers – well before the 11th century conquest by the Oguz Seljuk Turks of the whole of Iran, Anatolia, Caucasus and Iraq. Relevant Byzanthian, Arabic and even Armenian chroniclers and historians mentions Turks already in 5th century A.D. being sizeable in Caucasus and North Iran (South Azerbaijan) and elsewhere (not to mention Central Asia).

Of course Azerbaijan was a stronghold of Zoroastrism – we believe, like many scholars, that Zoroaster was from Azerbaijan. Yet Zoroastrism doesn’t translate into “Persian” – for one, it predates the incursion of the ethnic Persians into northern Iran. Secondly, before becoming Christian, the Caucasian Albans – who were of Caucasian, as well as Turkic and some Iranian origin – were Zoroastrian. Hence, it is not inconceivable for Turkic people to be Zoroastrian – and not be, especially by the time of Nizami, “shamanistic” – which were the Turkic people of the Russian and Central Asian steppes, but not the Caucasian and Middle Eastern Turkic people. The Turkic nation was huge – it is a gross mistake to think of this great nation as all being one, uniform and the same. Otherwise, why did Mongols and Tatar confederation battle Turks? Why did Ottoman Turks battle Azerbaijani and Iranian Turks? And all of them battle Timurleng?

The etymology and origin of the terms “Azerbaijan” along with “Naxcivan” is debated. By Nizami’s time, Turks were majority in many cities of Azerbaijan, as well as Iran, such as Ganja, Beylaqan (Baylakan), Barda, and the language, Turki, was the most popular language – as is derived also from the “conversation” of Nizami with Shirvanshah Ahsatan/Akhsitan I in “Leyli and Mejnun”, where shirvanshah specifically asks Nizami to write either in Persian or Arabic, but not in Turki – to the dissatisfaction of Nizami, who wanted to refuse at first, but was persuaded by his “Turkic-born” son Muhammed, then 14 years old, to go ahead with the request of the shirvanshah. As one of the top authorities in Oriental studies in the Soviet Union, Russian academician Krachkovsky wrote in his 1946 article “Early history of the epic about Mejnun and Leyli in Arabic literature”, Nizami later wrote a verse in response, in which he essentially threw a stone at ethnic Persian (or Persianized Arab) shirvanshah (whose mother was Georgian, by the way) by advising him to become a Turk.

Hence all the one-sided articles about “turkification of the area” by ill-educated pseudo-historians should be left aside.

Also, consider that Tats, Talysh, Kurds, and any other Iranian peoples in Azerbaijan are both in absolute and relative numbers smaller than the numbers of Turkic people in Iran, as well as Azerbaijan or Central Asia. Keep that in mind.

6) Not only Nizami praised or liked Firdowsi (Ferdowsi), but many others, including other Turkic poets and scholars, as well as myself, any Azerbaijani, etc. Also, let’s not forget on whose order did Ferdowsi wrote the Shah-nameh – or we suffer from memory loss? It was none other than sultan Mahmud Ghaznevi – a Turkic ruler of Ghazna. Hence, saying that Nizami was Persian and not Azerbaijani (Turkic) just because he praised Ferdowsi is ludicrous and absurd. Only a modern day Persian chauvinist and racist would assume that everyone is like him, and that everyone Turkic would hate/dislike/look down on anything and anyone Persian (or Iranian in general). In Azerbaijan, the undoubtedly Persian (ethnically) Saadi, Hafiz (Hafez), as well as Persian-Tajik poets Ferdowsi, Jami, Rudaki are very much liked and appreciated.

7) Now with yet another baseless and inaccurate, indeed, totally false statement of Mr. Doostzadeh: “Now as per Albanian, Albanian (Arrani) did not exist anymore during Nizami's time and the Albanian church was already incorporated into Armenian Church and became part of the Armenians”. This is utter and total rubbish from a person who does not know and simply cannot know history of Caucasian Albania (Arran), as most advance research on it is available only in Russian, as well as in Armenian, Azerbaijani, Georgian, English, some German, Italian, Turkish, and only then perhaps in Persian and other languages. Let it be known that the Alban Apostolic Autocephalous Christian Church was illegally abolished and merged with Armenian Apostolic by the decree of the Russian czar only in 1836 (!), with further decision by the Russian Christian Church Sinod on transferal of all property, documents, as well as destruction (!) of some documents in the beginning of the 20th century. Until the 19th century, the ever-dwindling Alban ethnos was still present, and the various Alban principalities were constantly re-established in Arran, particularly the Khachen principality of prince Hasan in 12th century and one of his sons, Shahinshah (that title by then was not corresponding to reality) Hasan Jalal in the 12-13th centuries. This prince/shahinshah Hasan Jalal build the Gandzasar Church in the Gandzasar Monastery in 1216-1238, which was the seat of the Alban Church Catholicos (Pope). There are many famous Alban Christian historians of that era, contemporaries of Nizami. Thus, the Alban ethnos, while severely degraded, was still very much alive and functioning, and any statements to the contrary are false.

Moreover, the “Albans” were never an ethnos in the strict sense – they were a nation, like Iranians or Azerbaijanis or Georgians or Russians – which included many other ethnic groups, in fact, according to Strabo, 26 different ethnic groups, speaking different languages and not understanding each other.

Then, the only rightful heirs to the Caucasian Albans can be only Azerbaijanis – all of them for that matters, from the “purest” of them, the Udins, as well as Lezgins, Gels, Kryzes, Hinalugs, Alpans (none of them kept their Christian faith or alphabet), to the much bigger mass of people who are Azerbaijani Turks, and trace their heritage to such Alban Turkic tribes as Chols, Gargars, as well as Huns, Sabirs, Khazars, and others.

Only a smaller portion of Albans was Grigorianized and became Armenian – those are mostly the inhabitants of Karabakh (Artsakh) and Zangezur (Syunik). Thus speaking of some general “genetic testing” showing that aside for Azerbaijanis, Armenians are “closest people to Albanians” is improper. What are those studies?

8) Neither J.Meisami in her 1995 book, nor definitely prof. Talattof, both Iranians, claim that Nizami was ethnic Persian. Also, neither does Encyclopedia Britannica, opting for the vague and indefinite term “Persian poet”, which essentially means Persian-language poet – which indeed Azerbaijani Turk Nizami, along with Uzbek Alisher Navoi or Turk from India Khosrow Dehlevi were. Any scholar claiming that Nizami’s father was Persian is simply not a scholar – there is not a single shred of evidence of that and plenty of factual arguments of his father and Nizami’s own self-view as Turk.

Indeed, this is why none other than Saeed (Said) Nafisi, whom Mr. Doostzadeh referred to and holds in high esteem, told the visiting Russian (Jewish) academician Marr in Iran in the 1930s: “Nezami is not a Persian poet, he lived and worked in Azerbaijani environment, and his poems are incomprehensible to Persians” (Source: Yu.N.Marr. Articles and messages. Collection of works, Vol. II, p. 266. ).

Thus, I don’t know how could Nafisi “agree” upon labeling Nizami as ethnic Persian, if he said the opposite to a trustworthy and authoritative academician Marr? Same goes for Vahid Dasgirdi. But then of course we realize how taboo it is in Iran to name anyone, especially famous, as Azerbaijani, or even Turk. Better label everyone “Iranian”, which might over time transform into simply “Persian”, because often that term is all-inclusive, like American, British, or Russian.

9) Whilst it’s nice to see that some Iranians were reading Russian-language sources and carefully saved the 1988 issue of the Soviet Culture magazine, it should be noted that the article by Mikhail Kapustin in that magazine – who never published anything on Nizami before – coincided with a similar article by Armenian author Grachik Simonyan in the Grakan Tert newspaper. Both articles ignored modern research, including by a true Nizami specialist Armenian poetess Shaginyan, and repeated the same old, irrelevant, sometimes false claims – such as the Qom theory – and conveniently ignored all relevant Turk references in Nizami’s works, while selectively citing anything favorable to Iran and Persians, often going overboard by misattributing words of shairvanshah Ahsitan to Nizami himself (which is in essence the same what Mr. Doostzadeh and others do too). So Mr. Kapustin wrote in an era, when pressure of not the Communist party, but money from wealthy and powerful Armenian diaspora was prevalent, especially as the latter fully dominated M.Gorbachev’s government in charge of economy, sciences and culture.

10) Mr. Doostzadeh goes on to make more baseless and groundless assertions: “Neither did the formation of an Azarbaijani ethnic group exist. There is simply not one poetic manuscript of this language from the caucus prior to the Ilkhanid mongol invasion, long after Nizami”

For his knowledge, the following writings in Azerbaijani Turki have been preserved from BEFORE the Ilkanid ear: historian Masud ibn-Namdar (12th century), Alim ibn-Mukhenna (12th century), poet Ali (1233). Of course the fact that there are such great Turkic eposes as Dede Korkut and Oghuz Nameh, which are oral stories from at least 1300 ago, and oldest manuscript of which was written in 1053, and use a very rich language, proving that the Azerbaijani Turki language was well formed by Nizami’s time – although of course its all relative, since the process of evolution and development and perfection is endless. Before Turki became popular among poets in 15th century, Persian was, yet before it, Arabic – read Meisami’s intro on that – or that of Ferdowsi, who as he says himself, saved Persian language from extinction. Today we write in English, a century ago we would have written in French. As the Armenian-edited Great Soviet Encyclopedia acknowledged (the Soviet equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica), “Literary Azerbaijani language began to form from 11th century.” That is, before Nizami.

As famous Arab historian and traveler Ibn Azrak wrote in 1070, “Ganja is the great capital of Turks”. Another historian, of the Khorezm-shah, Jalaladin Mangiburni Nasawi noted, that “In Arran and Mugan, the Turks, like ants, are too numerous to count”. Note that Nizami writes about both Arran and Mugan when describing Shirin and Mihin-Banu.

11) Nizami was a Muslim, and was a Sunni, and a Sufi. He was not Shi’a, and was definitely not a very Orthodox or otherwise strict Muslim, contrary to what ideologically motivated Iranian writers might claim.

12) The shirvanshah’s were only nominally under the Seljuq’s and their regents, the Azerbaijani Atabeks, and did not pay them or mention in the prayers or coins. It is not secret that they were enemies and nemesis, and that’s why Shirvan had a strategic alliance with another nominal vassal, but enemy of Seljuk Empire, Georgia. Akhsitan’s mother was Georgian queen Tamar.

Likewise, Seljuks were no more Persianized culturally than any other Middle Eastern nation Arabized or Mongol Ming Dynasty “Chinized” or Moghuls “Indianized”. Likewise, Persian (Iranian) kings had all kinds of inter-marriages and mixes, and in general, Iran was Turkic-ruled for at least one whole millennium.

13) Here’s another example of Mr. Doostzadeh mistranslating his native Persian language – or actually, the 12th century Dari: “Nizami understood Arabic, Persian, Bukhari(Soghdian Persian/Iranian dialect) and Tabari (Mazandarani Persian/Iranian dialect”. Unknown to Mr. Doostzadeh is that Nizami actually writes and means the following: “In Arabic I read everything and in Dari, The book of Bukhari I read, the book of Tabari” (this verse, which Mr. Doostzadeh includes in Farsi, is from Haft Paykar (Seven Beauties)).

Mr. Doostzadeh confuses the famous historian At-Tabari (~839-923) and religious scholar imam Al-Bukhari (~810-870) with “Bukhari” and “Tabari” dialects. Bravo, way to go! Or maybe here too everyone in the world was wrong, and only Mr. Doostzadeh saw the light?

By the way, this verse, along with an analogous verse from Iskandar-nameh (“Aside from newest histories, I also studied Jewish, Christian and Pehlevi books”) is yet another proof of Nizami being non-Persian and being Turk – why on Earth would a supposed “Persian” boast about conducting research in his “native” Dari Persian? Why put “native” Persian on the same line with clearly foreign Arabic (all this despite the fact that Nizami obviously had excellent proficiency in many languages)? Why name clearly foreign Jewish and Christian religions and put the Pehlevi, which is supposed to be the religion of his forefathers, according to Persian chauvinists, on the same line? It does not make sense – it’s the same as Shakespeare writing that he conducted his research in French, Swedish and …. English, and that he consulted Muslim, Jewish and Christian. When we write our resumes or CVs in the USA or UK, do we actually put English language proficiency on it in the section of languages?

14) Afrasiyab, a name that was spelled/pronounced in such a way in Shahnameh, is also known as Alp Er Tung in Turkic mythology. And Mr. Doostzadeh’s name is Ali – does it mean he is Arab?

15) I don’t care what search results from Google will yield vis-à-vis Shirin – I’ve already stated very clearly that she could not have been Armenian, and was clearly Azerbaijani (Arrani) Turk. And her name in Azerbaijani, unlike in Armenian, also means “sweet” just as in Persian. For example, Armenian (!) expert on Nizami, M.Shaginyan dismissed the mistaken assumption of Shirin being Armenian – I have the page from her book scanned, just in case someone doesn’t believe. How poorly educated one has to be to say that Shirin was Armenian if she just travelled (i.e, not lived!) to Armenia, a geographic concept to begin with as there was no independent Armenia either in Nizami's time or in Khosrov time. I guess F.Kafka was ethnic German or ethnic Czech, since he wrote in German and lived in Prague -- but in reality he was Jewish. Ayatollah Khomeini was probably French -- after all, he travelled and lived in France. And I guess myself, along with you, are pure Anglo-Saxons for writing in English. Shirin was an Azerbaijani (Arrani) Turk -- she had those slanted eyes, that you consider an insult, she drank kumis (the Turkic - nomadic - horse's milk), her ansestor, as mentioned by Nizami, was Turanian ruler Afrasiyab, who was also ancestor of Mihin-Banu -- the queen of Arran (Barda) and Shirin's aunt, who pocessed and ruled all of Arran and Armenia.

Here are some relevant verses (from “Shapur’s story about Shirin”) (quick translation into English mine, the first verses are about Mihin-Banu, Shirin’s aunt):

There, beyond the chain of mountains, … where happy Derbent, and sea, and gulf, There is a woman…. Boiling of her army reached Isfahan. Till Armenia Arran mighty region belongs (is obedient) to her. My ruler, know this: many regions send her tributes like a lamb/cap in hand. In the world there are probably no happier creatures (people). Countless castles she has in the mountains. <….> In the days of rose Madam will travel to Mughan …. In the mountains of Armenia she roams/roves in the summer …. And when autumn will come – and there, she does a raid on the game in Abkhazia In the winter she is in Barda. Defiant (scorning) times of year, she lives, forgetting, what is foul weather.

(from “Flight of Khosrov from Behram Chubine”):

In impassible (bad) roads he penetrated into Arran , From there he traveled to Mughan : in Mughan did Shirin live .

Later, there is a chapter entitled “Travel of Shapur to Armenia after Shirin”, in which Armenia is not named anymore, but it is clear from all the previous context that Armenia, a geographic notion, was PART of the greater Arran kingdom of her aunt (not mother, aunt!), Mihin-Banu (or Mahin-Banu) – and Shirin was to be Mihin-Banu’s successor on the throne, according to Shapur’s story to Khosrow.

16) Finally, what is seemingly “insulting” and “derogatory” to Mr. Doostzadeh and various modern day Persian racists in regards to portrayal of Turks in Nizami’s Khamse is actually very much loved by those Turks themselves – of course, this is due to different understanding of the connotations and meanings that Nizami put into that term. What is “insulting” to a Persian when Nizami writes about a “Turkish conquest/invasion/incursion” (“Torktaz” and “Torktazi”), is actually appreciated and liked by an Azerbaijani, since from the whole context of the poems, as is affirmed by scholars, Nizami inputs exclusively positive connotation to that word and those seemingly “violent” and thus “negative” terms. Turks are always used as fair, just nation and rulers (see “Story about the sultan of Sanjar”), great warriors (in a positive way), dedicated and honest, beautiful.

And once again, Mongols were not even known to Nizami. As was not Kor-oglu, who was at best a 17th century phenomenon. Meanwhile, Nizami in his 5 epic poems had to write about what was popular and wanted to the patrons – and even Turkic rulers wanted smth about either Persian or Arabic rulers. What Nizami wrote in his Divan we won’t know for sure – 90% of it is lost. Yet the 10% that remains you should know and not deny that it doesn’t exist – read the very same Dastgirdi or Nafisi for one about the lyrical poems from the Divan (which they separate into several categories ranging from 100% Nizami’s to “maybe/probably” Nizami’s or even most likely not Nizami’s. Which is no different from 5 poems in essence – there too some ideologically motivated scribers made changes and inserted various couples, like with Qom.

Anyways, I can go on and on about this, but have neither the time, nor the will to have a senseless argument.

--AdilBaguirov 05:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The users comment before comment one has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. One can take a look at Azarbaijani Chavaunism and racism with regards to Talysh, Tat, Armenian people. So lets not discuss issues that are not related. 1) On point one. Again Nizami did not write in Russian. Many Russian and USSR scholars have confmired Nizamis ethnic Iranian identity. Specially after the USSR breakup. Everyone knows that the scholarship of the west is tainted. The user is not aware that the general policy of wikipedia is to use what the most recent scholars think about Nizami and not scholars from 50 years ago from USSR. What Mr. Adil Baguirov needs to show, is actual sources from foreign scholars after the USSR breakup! Indeed in the USSR one could not argue with Stalin as the following article has shown.. but after the breakup famous Russian and Armenia scholars totally rejected the theory of Nizami Ganjavi having to do anything with Azarbaijanis. So Mr. Adil Baguirov needs to bring up new sources and not stuff from 50 years ago by some soviet scholars. Indeed USSR scholarship was tainted when it came to ethnic issues. It must remembered that Nizamis work were not translated into Azeri-Turkish prior to the USSR era and furthermore Stalin did his best to make Nizami into a Turk. Look at his direct statement! See the following article, the first one in English and the second one in Persian about USSR scholarship and Nizami Ganjavi: Stalin and Nizami Fiftieth Anniversary of a great Falsification

Indeed this strong statement from a Russian scholar of Iranian studies, by the name of Mikhail Kapustin in 1988 (during the time when the soviet union was opening up to the world and there was no pressure on scholars to manipulate fact) wrote in the cultural magazine of Soviets: Nizami Ganjavi is one of the greatest thinkers and poets of the middle ages and belongs to the exceptional heritage of Persian literature. He had no connection with the current culture of Azarbaijan. And Azerbaijanis (he means the caucus ones that consider themselves Turks) are making a useless effort to claim and make him of their own. At the time of Nizami, Azeri-Turks did not exist in Azarbaijan. (sovietkaya kultura (soviet culture) magazine, 27 of December, 1988) was taken from the source above.

This is a strong statement, sufficient enough to warrant writing nothing about the ethnicity of his father. If I was a ultra-nationalist like Mr. Baguirov I would claim Nizami as a Persian and use such statements and then we would go back and forth. The fact is that Nizami has no verse calling his father any ethnicity and so we must do as Encyclopedia Britannica does. And by the way when judging a Persons ethnicity, we do not use 12th century time, but the modern time, where both female and male lineage are important.

The author is not Armenian and even if he was, it doesn’t matter! Since you are using some Armenian from 1950, whereas I can use tons of Armenian scholars from now when the USSR censors and Stalin are not at work! And personally there is no proof that Armenians gave Mr. Kapustin money to write this! This is what happens when you talk to a pan-turkist greywolf. Their logic becomes actually absurd. By the way there is an article about how some Azarbaijani historians deleted some likes in a book about Karabagh. Not that I care, but I do not want to get involved in Armenian-Azarbaijani stuff. Okay? I don’t care, I am Iranian and Iranian ethnicity.

2) The user does not know that Iranians can read Persian language of 12th century with almost no problem. Weven the Persian language of Fedowsi and Rudaki are read with no problem. Modern Persian essentially has changed very little since the Arabic invasion and its develop. Nizamis being born under the Seljuqids does not mean anything as million of other Iranians were born in it. The user also does not know something about Iraq which I am forced to tell him. In Persian literature, the word Iraq is used to refer to two lands. One is Iraq-e-Ajam (Hamadan, Qazvin, Esfahan..) and one is Iraq-e-Arab (modern Iraq). Nizamis dedication of poetry to Turkish rulers as well as the non-Turkish ShirvanShah has no bearing on his ethnic identity. That Jalal Khalegh Motlaqi used many editions and one was the Shahnameh of Moscrow, has no bearing on the issue of Nizamis ethnicity. The most recent edition of Nizamis work is by Prof. Barat Zanjani which is more updated than any Russian manuscript. Understanding Persian is essential to undering Nizami. Understanding Russian, is not as essential specially with tainted USSR scholarship.

3) It is good that the user agreed that Nizamis mother tongue is Kurdish. There is no such thing as an Azarbaijani Kurd culturally! Azarbaijanis are defined as Turkic speaking group. Indeed there is a big rivalry between Azarbaijani and Kurdish separatist right now in Iran as well over many cities. Plus Kurds have been in the area much longer. Kurdish mother by ethno-linguistic standard and cultural standard does mean that Nizamis mother is at least Iranian. Also when someones mother tongue is Kurdish, most likely they pronounce words in Turkish.

4) The user claims that I said Nizamis third wife was Afaq. This is just a false lie and I would advise the user to not mistake the whole article, as being written by me. Indeed different people over time have contributed to it. The word Afaq is not Appaq. No manuscript has the word Afaq and Said Nafisi has shown correctly that Nizami just mean that his wife was his horizon and the reading by Vahid Dastgerdi that Afaq was the name of his wife is in dispute. Indeed to the average Persian speaker, the interpretation of Prof. Nafisi is correct. Also it should be remember that she was a slave girl sent by the ruler of Darband. Currently that “Afaq” was her name is in dispute by some scholars and so it is can not be guaranteed as Nizamis Kurdish mother.

What the user does not understand is hat in Persian bot-e-Qifchaq although literally does mean the idol of Qifchaq. But in Persian language, the people of Qifchaq were know to beutifull and symbolically in Persian literature, anyone that was beutifull was called bot-e-Qifchaq, Bot-e-Tabat (Tibet), Bot-e-Khotan (Khotanese), Boto-e-Khata .. That is why this part can be taken into dispute while the Kurdish mother is 100% clear.

All manuscripts have wrote Afaq. There is absolutely no evidence that Afaq is Apaq! Indeed Afaq is a clear Arabic loan-word meaning the sky-horizon. Ferdowsi for example says: در آفاق هر جا ز نزدیک و دور نبد کآن نه فر یافت نه نور

And many other examples in Persian poetry. One can not just make up false claims that 100% her name was Afaq and then go from Afaq to Apaq (which is not even in any manuscript). That is simply not accurate. One can propose a theory but the accuracy of it is up to debate and it is sufficient for it that some serious scholars dispute it.

Again the user has put words in my mouth. Tork-Zaad means born of a Turkish slave. And again Nizami could have even continued his symbolic language and for all that is known, he could have meant “turk” to his wife in a symbolic manner. This is used a lot in Persian literature. Now as per the word Tork-e-Zaad. Zaadan is a verb to give birth and Tork-e-Zaad in Persian literature as opposed to Turk, means a person whose father is Persian/Arab and his mother is a Turkish/Turkish slave. It is women that give birth and not man incase Mr. Adil does not know! I refer to the Dehkhoda dictionary and examples of this in Persian literature. The first time such a word is used is by Ferdowsi (which Nizami was an avid reader of) when referring to Hormozd the Sassanid king whose father was the Sassanid king Anoshiravan and whose mother was from the Gok-Turks, sent by the Khaghan of Turks as a present to Anoshiravan.:

Ferdowsi says:

سخن بس کن از هرمزد ترکزاد که اندر زمانه مباد آن نژاد

The translation is: End all this talk about Hormozd the Tork-Zaad May such a race (Nezhad) never exist in time

And again Ferdowsi says about Hormozd:

که این ترکزاده سزاوار نیست

کسی او را به شاهی خریدار نیست.

This Tork-zaadeh is very incompetent No one supports his kingship

In Dekhodas dictionary we also read: کسی که زنی ترک او را زاده باشد A person who is born by a Turkish female.

So Ferdowsi has already defined this term as you can see above (and this is the first time we see it in Persian literature) and Mr. Adil Baguirov should be aware that in order to study Nizami, one know Shahnameh very well. Indeed Nizami has praised Ferdowsi many times., something no Turkish nationalist would do! And indeed Ferdowsi is the best example of Persian poetry of 10th century.

5) Mr. Adil keeps saying the Qom issue is a proven fact. The fact of the matter is that some scholars have stated it. Prof. CE Wilson, Prof. Dastgerdi and Prof. Julia Meysami. Indeed it is not only in some manuscripts, but even in some compositions. For example a text about the history of Qom, 400 years old has mentioned it. So this is not 100% proven fact. It is a “maybe” and “perhaps”. And about manuscripts, some older manuscripts of Shahnameh for example are less incorrect then some other manuscripts that have come more recent. It must be remembered that multiple sources for manuscripts have existed.

6) Mr. Adil does not know that at least indo-Iranians where in the area since the time of Mittani. The first mentioning of Persians/Medes (who spoke pretty much the same language as attested by Strabo with slight sound changes) in the area is 832 B.C. in Assyrian chronices. And what has the arrival of Persians in Iran has to do with Nizami! Also Mr. Baguirov might not know that Turks at that time pretty much has a tribal background. So it was either Oghuz, Qifqach, Khattai, … And Nizami does not belong to either of these, as no evidence has been provided.

7) We knows that Turks arrived much later in the area. Mr. Adil Baguirov does not know that Tabari is a Persian historian writing in Arabic and he considers others as Chauvinist. Indeed remarkable. And it shows that he is the one that is trying to deny other peoples history! Although Tabari has nothing to do with Nizami, it would be good that Mr. Baguirov mentioned the Arabic quotes by Tabari. The problem is that Mr. Adil Baguirov, who lectures authors on geography did not know what Araq-e-Ajam mentioned. Now he made another mistake because he does not know that Khorasan was not only the western part of modern Iran, but it referred to a large part of Afghanistan and Central Asia. As per the Nizak Tarkhans, although Tabari mentions them as Turks, others have mentioned them as Hephtalites. Indeed Prof. Richard Frye mentions

«در منابع غربی و خاورنزدیک لفظ های گوناگون "سکا، هون و ترک" همه دلالت دارند بر مردمان استپ. اما چینیان برای آنان نام های دیگری داشتند. پس همه مردمی که در دشت های آسیای میانه می زیسته اند یا از آن جا به خاور نزدیک یا اروپای شرقی در نیمه اول هزاره اول پس از میلاد آمدند، هون نبودند و این که در منابع غربی یا خاور نزدیک قومی را هون خوانده اند، کنایه از آن است که از دشت های آسیای میانه سرازیر شده اند نه این که به راستی هون باشند».

Which means that in old Western and Middle-eastern historiography , the terms “Scythian, Huns, Turks” and any tribe and group living in central Asia was referred to these names.

The term Tarkhan (and not Tarhan, I am wondering if Mr. Baguirov is from Turkey or the republic of Azarbaijan, since Azari Turkish has kh), is general military title and it was used by Soghdians for example. (See Shanmahe about the Tarkhan of Samarghand whose name is Bijan and who is Soghdian).

Anyways the pointed I wanted to mention is that Mr. Adil Baguirov has put part of Afghanistan (Central Asia) as part of modern Iran! Also he did not know the difference between Araq-e-Ajam and Araq-e-Arab, while anyone versed in middle Persian historiography knows it. Finally, if any groups of Turks can be claimed as Azarbaijani, then any groups of Iranians like Soghdians, Parthians, Scythians can be claimed as Persian. So Mr. Baguirov must concentrate mainly on the Oghuz language which Azarbaijani Turkish is descendant of and which was the language of the Seljuqs (Although the seljuqs in Anatolia derided the term Turk).

Mr. Adil Baguirov makes some other claims. He wants to say Zoroastrianism is not Persian, but we all know it is Iranian. Also many travelers have described the language of Azarbaijan during the Sassanid and Islamic era as Persian, Azari-Pahlavi (Azari dialect of middle Persian) and etc. And ancient sources have used the term Persian and Iranian interchangeably. For example Masoudi the Arabi historian writes (and I have brought the Arabic quote unlike Mr. Adil Baguirov):

According to the famous historian al-Masu'di, who lived in the 10th Century AD, the Persians are: a people whose borders are the Mahat Mountains and Azarbaijan up to Armenian and Aran, and Bayleqan and Darband, and Ray and Tabaristan and Masqat and Shabaran and Jorjan and Abarshahr, and that is Nishabur, and Herat and Marv and other places in land of Khorasan, and Sejistan and Kerman and Fars and Ahvaz...All these lands were once one kingdom with one sovereign and one language...although the language differed slightly. The language, however, is one, in that its letters are written the same way and used the same way in composition. There are, then, different languages such as Pahlavi, Dari, Azari, as well as other Persian languages. (Al Mas'udi, Kitab al-Tanbih wa-l-Ishraf, De Goeje, M.J. (ed.), Leiden, Brill, 1894, pp. 77-8)

«مسعودي» مورخ اوايل سده‌ي چهارم ق. در كتاب خود "التنبیه و الاشراف" (ص 8-77) پس از ذكر نام بلاد ايران (مانند: آذربايجان، ري، طبرستان، گرگان، هرات، مرو، سيستان، كرمان، فارس، اهواز و…) مي‌گويد كه: «همه‌ي اين بلاد، كشوري واحد بودند و پادشاه و زباني واحد داشتند جز اين كه در برخي واژگان تفاوت‌هاي داشتند … مانند پهلوي و دري و آذري و ديگر زبان‌هاي فارسي».

And by the way at the time of Nizami, there was still large groups of Iranians in Central Asian steppes, (Soghdians, Chorasmians, Alans) and etc. So the Iranian nation was huge as well and two of the great people are Zoroaster and Cyrus the great.

As per the etymology of Azarbaijan, it is just sufficient to say that term Azarbaijan and Nakhjivan are not in any old Turkish manuscript. And the name of it is clear. See I.M. Diakonoff, the history of the Medes. And also the Encyclopedia Iranica. Also see the Encyclopedia Iranica on Azari (ancient language of Azarbaijan). So the people of Azarbaijan were not Turks during the of Nizami.

And by the way some 1946 USSR scholar does not know on the Shirvanshah. I have explained the above verse and I will do so again. Firstly Nizami heavily praises the ShirvanShah. Secondly he quotes the Shirvan Shah in beutifull poetry:

تُرکی صِفَت وَفای ما نيست تُرکانِه سُخن سِزای ما نيست آن کز نَسَبِ بُلَند زايد او را سُخن بُلند بايد

Torki-sefat vafaayeh maa nist Turkish manners are not part of our faithfullness Turkish tongue is not befitting for us The person who is born of great descent (he is belittling turks) The words of his must be great ascent

Now what Mr. Baguirov does not know that the term had also came to mean wrong-doer, plundered. For example Sanai says: To Torki o Hargez Nabood Tork Vafaadaar (You are a turk and a Turk never had any faithfullness). Another poet Asadi Toosi says: “vafaa na-ayad az torkaan hargez padid- vaz Iranian joz vafaa kas nadid”

(Faithfullness has never came from Turks, but from Iranians everyone sees faithfullness) 

Ferdowsi says about Turks: Keh torkaan raa baa kherad nist joft (That turks do not possess with logic and wisdom).

The term bi-vafaa (faithlessness and honorlessness) about Turks has a long history in Persian poetry and I just mentioned Sanai and Asadi Tusi, two Persian poets, living prior to Nizami. Nizami who was another Persian poet uses the same language

Now what Mr. Baguirov does not mention is very heavy praises Nizami bestows on the Shirvanshah in that poem and he does not belittle the Shirvanshah at all. Mr. Adil Baguirov needs to quote a 1946 USSR scholar whose theory was refuted by Iranian scholars, including the Iranian Azarbaijani scholars Abbas Zarin Khoi. The problem again is the USSR historiography which is not reliable when it comes to ethnic issues. Indeed most of the same USSR scholars also tried to show Nizami Ganjavi as anti-Islam. And scholars have taken the above couplets to mean that Shirvanshah were not going to be stingy, like Mahmud of Ghazna was to Ferdowsi. Also it has been asked of Mr. Baguirov to bring the actual Persian when he referring to Nizamis work. And his son and Nizami Ganjavi have also praised Shirvanshah in the introduction. Mr. Baguirov needs to bring verses, something he can not either do or does not wish to do, since he does not have a knowledge of Persian to defends his obscure theories. And let us remember that the Persianized Arab dynasty of Shirvanshah (who drew their descendant to Sassanid kings showing the Iranian ethnic identity of the area) did not understand Turkish, for Nizami to write for them in Turkish! This point is not even mentioned by Mr. Baguirov. Indeed why would an Arab descendant king, who wanted a composition of a pre-Islamic Arab story, and who did not know Turkish, want something in Turkish! The correct interpretation of the above verses, when references with other Persian poets (something Mr. Baguirov does not know, since to understand Nizami one needs to understand Ferdowsi and Sanai and etc..), is clear as I have demonstrated above. Indeed if Nizami had any Turki-Sefat, then he would not heavily praise Shirvanshah and write couplets belittling Turks in his introduction. He would

And Ibn Howal who lived in 980 AD has clearly mentioned the language of Arran, Armenia and Azarbaijan as Persian, Arabic, Armenian … and has not said anything about Turkish! Also unlike what Baguirov thinks, Turks were not even majority in Azarbaijan, after the mongol invasion. See Hamdollah Mosftavafi who wrote about the Iranian cities of Azarbaijan after the mongol invasion. He describes Tabriz, Zanjan, Maragheh.. as all Persian/Pahlavi speaking. I did not get the point about Tat, Talysh, Kurds and etc. But they are Iranians ethno-linguistically. Just like Turkomens are a Turkic people. What is the problem?

7) About Sultan Mahmud Ghaznavi, indeed Mr. Baguiorv perhaps is suffering from memory loss. Because not only his mother was a Persian girl, but he indeed falsified a geneaology to make him a descent of Sassanid kings. There is not even one Turkish poem from his court! And his court poets have consistently referred to him as the king of Iran. Like Farrokhi.

The rest of the racist/chauvinist mumb-jumbo is irrelevant. Indeed Mr. Baguirov keeps writing irrelevant stuff that has nothing to do with Nizami. But it is well known that the Ottomans looked down upon the term Turks and I can provide many references. I do not care about the racist/chauvinist mumbo-jumbo, I care about writing history correctly, as the way it should be. For example here is a quote from Aflaki (a student of Rumi) about Turks (indeed the later Seljuqids pretty much did not consider themselves Turks as neither did Ottoman. Their Persianization happened once their domain extended). There is a well known story that the sheikh Salah al-Din one day hired some Turkmen workmen to build the walls of his garden. "Effendi Salah al-Din", said the master (Rumi), "you must hire Greek workmen for this construction. It is for the work of demolition that Turkish workmen must be hired. For the construction of the world is special to the Greeks, and the demolition of this same world is reserved for the Turks. When God created the universe, he first made the carefree infidels. He gave them a long life and considerable force in such a fashion...that in the manner of paid workmen they constructed the earthly world. They erected numerous cities and mountain fortresses...so that after centuries these constructions served as models to the men of recent times. But divine predestination has disposed of affairs in such a way that little by little the constructions become ruins. He created the people of the Turks in order to demolish, without respect or pity, all the constructions which they see. They have done this and are still doing it. They shall continue to do it day in and day out until the Resurrection!"

So as you can the rivalry between Iranians and Turks existed. Sometimes there was constructive relationship and sometimes destructive (due to constant plunder of various Turkic tribes which had to do with their way of nomadic lifestyle).

7) Again if Mr. Baguirov can show samples of Albanidan language during Nizamis time, I would appreciate. I am not here to get into the Albanian-Armenian argument. And as per rubbish you have wrote so much rubbish that if I listed them, it would at least be 20! For example the word Manjuq which many Persian poets used. Also thinking that Central Asia is part of Iran. Or not knowing about Araq-e-Ajam and Araq-e-Arab. Obvisouly as an anti-Armenian, Azarbaijani nationalist, you are trying to belittle the Armenian people. 8) Prof. Meisami has mentioned the Qom. Prof Talatoff does not mention anything. Encyclopedia Britannica does not mention anything. THAT IS WHY I SAID THAT THE ETHNIC BACKGROUND OF HIS FATHER IS UNKNOWN. OR ELSE THE ENYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA AND MANY OTHER SOURCES WOULD SAY SOMETHING. HELLOOO! And by the way CE WILSON translated the Haft Paykar in English and he said Nizami was Persian. He is much more of scholar than you some pan-turkist!

9) All your evidences were easily rejected and is due to your lack of not understanding Persian.

10) I have Said Nafisis Book and he clearly states Nizami as Iranian many times. So the Russian source is bogus when someone has a book written by Said Nafisi. Indeed the USSR made a lot of bogus claims on ethno-scholarship. And what an big time idiot a person has to be to say that Nizamis poems are incomprehensible to Persians! Said Nafisi who has full book about Nizami and constantly mentioning him as an Iranian/Persian poet, so we can reject your statement. Also his book is written later than 1930! So that is a double reject. Indeed none of Nizamis story have anything to do with Turkish folklore and that is why his work was translated even later than English and German! Also Nizami clearly states that he looked into Persian, Arabic, Bukhari and Tabari sources but nothing about Turkish! Either Turkish was not comprehensible to him, or Turks did not posses a literature. Specially one that is relavent to Nizamis work. The Academic Marr by the way was originally a good scholar, but later on he became Psuedo-Scholar as everyone knows

10) Again I make the statement that there does not exist any Azarbaijani Turkish literature before the Ilkhanids from Azarbaijan. Dede-Korkut by the way uses the term Istanbul and Farooq Summer has put it way after Nizami. Dede Korkut contains 300 Arabic words and 160 Persian words. These Arabic words and Persian words did not exist during 1300 years ago. Mr. Adil needs to provide factual reference from Western Scholars on Azarbaijani Turkish language. Indeed Gerhard Doefer has not mentioned any Oghuz Turkish prior to the Mongol invasion from the area!

11) Actually no serious Iranian has claimed him to be a Shi’a.

12) A sufficient proof of Seljuqids being Persianized is their distaste for the term Turk in Anatolia.

13) Actually the verse Mr. Adil Baguirov whose rudeness only exists his ignorance about Bukhari and Tabari is this: زان سخن‌ها كه تازي است و دري در سواد بخاري و طبري وز دگر نسخه‌ها پراكنده هر دري در دفيني آكنده Again this can be taken two ways. And I had indeed considered it to mean Imam Bukhari and Imam Tabari. But Nizami uses two words Sokhan and Noskheh, which made me lean more on Tabari and Bukhari as languages. These two dialects have been mentioned by many historians. So the verse can be taken either way, but what is clear is that it has nothing to do with Turkish!

14) Afrasiyaab of the Shahnameh is Avesta word. Also all the Turanians in Avesta have Iranian names. And even if Kashgari assigns Afrasiyaab a Turkic name it is 1500 years after Avesta! The ethnicity of Turanians is not clear, but most scholars are leading towards an Iranian group. I ask Mr. Baguirov to provide the verses about Turan and Afrasiyaab in Khusraw o Shirin! But he didn’t reply!

15). Mr. Adil Baguirov repeats the same statement about Shirin like a parrot! But the fact of the matter is that I brought verses from other poets that consider Shirin as an Armenian. Indeed there is no mention of Turan or Afrasiyaab in the Khusraw o Shirin! Mr. Baguirov is a liar. For the rest of his statements also he can not bring the relavent verses. From example about nomadic horse milk, where is the verse? Where is the verse about Afrasiyaab? Where is the verse about Turan in Khusraw o Shirin? . And to show the real stupidity of Mr. Baguirov, it is well known that Shirin was a Christian and not some Shamanistic horse milk drinker.

What Mr. Baguirov like any pan-turkist does is that does not look at all evidence. Indeed Mahin Banu is called the ruler of Armenia and Arran and Abkhazia. But at the same time, Nizami clearly writes tha Khusraw sent Shapur to Armenia, he writes: برنده ره بیابان در بیابان به کوهستان ارمن شد شتابان که آن خوبان چو انبوه آمدندی به تابستان در آن کوه آمدندی چو شاپور آمد آنجا سبزه نو بود ریاحین را شقایق پیش رو بود گرفته سنگهای لاجوردی ز کسوت‌های گل سرخی و زردی

Line one: “Beh Kuhestan Arman Shod Shetaabaan” ((SHapur who was assigned to retrieve Shrin) was sent hurriedly to the mountains of Armenia).

What Mr. Baguirov does not know is that Ibn-e-Howqal and Baladhuri have put a large part of Georgian, Arran and other parts as Armenia.

What Mr. Baguirov does not touch upon is the other two poets Amir Khosrow Dehlavi and Vahshi Baqfi who have clearly mentioned Shirin as an Armenian.

What Mr. Baguirov does not know is that scholars after the breakup of USSR, as well as western scholas have mentioned Shireen as Armenian. For some that does not know Persian like Mr. Baguirov and then claim that he knows more than Persian and Iranist scholars is actually a true show of arrogance. Yes the chapter “Travel of Shapur to Armenia” is very important. Why isn’t it a “Travel to Turkistan”! Although Shireen is an Armenian in Persian poetry (Nizami, Vahshi Baqfi, Amir Khosrow Dehlavi ..) in reality she is said to be the daughter of emperor Maurice by some sources .

16) Mr. Baguirov is racist as well. Indeed if Khamseh had anything to do with Azarbaijani Turkic speakers, then it would have been translated long long ago to that language and not by the order of the USSR and Stalin would not get involved. As per praisal of Sanjar the Seljuq, other Persian poets have done. As per negative words about Turks, we can look at Alexanders reference to the Khaghans. And as per the term Torktaazi, it does not mean incursion/invasion, it means plunder. And it is a term used by other Persian poets including Sanai. Mr. Baguirov does not know that mongloid race does not mean Mongol.

17) The quotes from Diwan of Nizami ae not direct but indirect from other manuscripts. Their veracity is questionable.

18) After everything is said and done many many times, . we do not know about Nizamis father. Only his mother is Kurdish and all his work is Persian and all of them to do with Perso-Islamic culture if anyone reads Persian.. That is what the Encyclopedia Britannica and other scholars who are neutral and who are of today (the last 15 years) have said. Indeed some of them totally rejected the USSR ethnography of Nizami and that is sufficient proof that Mr. Baguirov can not use material from the USSR from 60 years ago. Else CE WILSON clearly states NIZAMI is Persian. The fact is the Azarbaijani Turkic identity is based on Dede-Qorqrod, Kur-Oghlu and Oghuz folklore. Not Sassanid Persian folklore. So even if Nizami was an African, his culture heritage is for the Persian speaking world and his ethnicity although at least half Iranian, the other half will never be known, but most likely was not Turkish or else he wouldn’t belittle turks in some verses, praise Ferdowsi, praise the Sassanid Kings who were enemies of Turks and finally the name of his father is fully Arabic and does not contain any tribal Turkish title. So instead of jumping on other issues and you can email me: alidoostzadeh@yahoo.com (after all is said and done, not that much hard feelings and I am used to such arguments in Misplaced Pages), the best way is to put Kurdish mother and then like the Encyclopedia Britannica say nothing. If indeed Nizami Ganjavi’s ancestry had anything to do with Oghuz Turks or other Turks, Encyclopedia Britannica and modern references would have mentioned it, which they do not. I can bring moderators into this debate and they will finally agree with Encyclopedia Britannica and recent scholarship. So instead, let us not make stuff up about his father.

In the end , the author can not claim Nizami Ganjavi as Azarbaijani Turk, since Nizamis fathers ethnic origin will always been unknown, although most probably Kurdish. If the author persist, I will bring other Iranian, Armenian, Wikipedians into the issue and there is a good amount of scholars that have said Nizami Ganjavi is Iranian (Kapustin, Armenian Scholars, CE WILSON, JULIA MEYSAMI (Father from QOM) and most of these sources are much more recent.

Any typos and spelling mistakes from the above response is due to the fact that the response is long and unfortunately Mr. Adil Buguirov jumped from Armenians to Persians to Russians being paid by Armenian to Afghanistan to Dede Korkot… The main focus here is on Nizamis father and there is no verse that mentions his ethnicity and so anything else is guest work although most likely his father was Iranian, judging by the non-Turkic character of Nizamis five jewels. Mr. Baguirov says: Anyways, I can go on and on about this, but have neither the time, nor the will to have a senseless argument. I would like this option to, so that Mr. Baguirov and myself do not go on and on. So lets go with what Encyclopedia Britannica says and his Kurdish mother.

--Ali doostzadeh 10:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The Evidence

Ali Doostzadeh (great work by the way) has posted a large amount of evidence. I have not seen any convincing evidence like the ones Ali posted by the opponents. The evidence posted is irrefutable is it not? This reminds of me of a quote:

Do not consider the intestinal conflicts of sects: For, not having found the truth, they went to the invention...

~ Hafez Shirazi Iranian Patriot 00:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Unassessed Iran articles
• Unknown-importance Iran articles
• WikiProject Iran articles
• Unassessed Azerbaijan articles
• Unknown-importance Azerbaijan articles
• WikiProject Azerbaijan articles